educational materials about the legal aspects of the use of domain names and trademarks
about 5,000 characters with spaces = 5 hours
learning materials on usage of domain names and trade marks and their legal bearings.
about 5 000 symbols with spaces = 5 hours of work
As we mentioned in Section 1, with the growth of the Internet, there is a close relationship between domain names and trademarks. Domain names have come into conflict with trademarks. The main reason for such conflict can be attributed to the lack of connection between the system of registering trademarks and the registration of domain names. The former is a system granting territorial rights enforceable only within the designated territory, the latter is a system of granting rights that can be enforced globally ( Tunkel & York, 2000 ). Because trademark law is territorial, a mark may be protected only in the geographic location where it distinguishes its goods or services. Thus, trademark law can tolerate identical or similar marks in different territories even within the same classes of goods and services. Domain names, by contrast, are both unique and global in nature. Only one entity in the world can own the right to use a specific domain name that can be accessed globally ( Efroni, 2002 ). Moreover, there is an opposition procedure for trademarks registration, while there is no notice period for the domain names registration.
The relationship between domain names and trademarks is aptly summarized in the US case of Lockheed
As we mentioned in Section 1, with the growth of the Internet, the concept of a domain name and trademark have begun to converge in its meaning. Domain names are entered into conflict with trademarks. The main reason for this contradiction can be called a lack of communication between the system of registration of trade marks и регистрацией доменных имен. Первой является система предоставления прав, имеющих исковую силу только в пределах указанных территорий, последней же является system of granting rights, which may have legal force and effect worldwide ( Tunkel & York, 2000 ). Since trademark law is territorial spread, the brand is protected only in places where it is specified to provide its products and services . Thus, trademark law may allow the existence of identical or similar trademarks in different areas, even in the same class of goods or services. In contrast, domain names both unique and inherently can be used globally. Only one organization in the world can have the right to use certain domain name for use anywhere in the world ( Efroni, 2002 ). Moreover, with respect to the registration of trade marks there is opposition procedure, while to register domain names no date of termination.
properly summed up in the relationship between domain names and trademarks brands in a court case U.S. companies Lockheed.
Martin Corpn v. NSI ( Case 1 ):
Corporation Martin Corpn n rotiv NSI (Case № a ):
Domain Names present a special problem under the Lanham Act because they are used for both a nontrade mark technical purpose, to designate a set of computers on the Internet, and for trade mark purposes, to identify an Internet user who offers goods or services on the Internet. When a domain name is used only to indicate an address on the Internet, the domain name is not functioning as a trade mark. Like trade names, domain names can function as trade marks, and therefore can be used to infringe trade mark rights.
Domain names, like trade names, do not act as trade marks when they are used merely to identify a business entity; in order to infringe they must be used to identify the source of goods or services.
By law Lanham domain names are a special problem because they are both from the technical to a non-profit marks to denote the set of computers on the Internet, as well as to the brand for the identification of Internet users, and offers products or services on the Internet. When a domain name is used exclusively to refer to Internet addresses, domain name, does not play the role of the brand. As well as trade names, domain names can function as trademarks and thus can be used to assault on trademark rights.
Domain names as trademarks, do not act as trade marks, when they are used only to refer to trade organization; to violate those rights, they should be used to identify the source of goods or services.
For instance, the US case of Playboy Enterprises Inc v. Calvin Designer Label ( Case 2 ): Playboy successfully objected to the registration of the domain names ‘‘playboyxxx.com’’ and ‘‘playmatelive.com’’ on the basis of its registered trademark rights in ‘‘PLAYBOY’’ and ‘‘PLAYMATE’’. The Panel decision showed that the possibility and efficiency of protecting trademarks owners by rejecting the registration of the other parties’ trademarks as domain names at the beginning.
As we know, Internet domain names ending in ‘‘.com’’ are issued by private companies on a first-come, firstserved basis. There is no guarantee that domain names including trademarks can only be registered by trademarks owners. This lack of regulatory control led to a thriving cybersquatting business, in which
individuals would register domain names including the trademarks of well-known companies and then ‘‘ransom’’ the domain names back to the trademarks owners ( Carson, Christensen, & Kandara, 2000 ). Similar to the conflict with trademarks, there is also inconsistency between domain names and other legitimate rights
of identity because the different registration and administration system. As WIPO noted, restrictions of the domain names registration can have an effect on reducing the tension between domain names and intellectual property rights ( Report 5 ).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Fangfei Wang / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 116–127 119
example, lawsuit U.S. Playboy Enterprises Inc n rotiv Calvin Designer Label (case number 2): Playboy successfully contested domain name registration ''playboyxxx.com'' and''playmatelive.com ' on the basis of the rights of registered trade marks ''PLAYBOY'' and ''PLAYMATE''. jury's decision showed that there ability to protect trademark holders and this can be done effectively by the refusal of registration of trade marks on behalf of other parties as Domain names at the outset.
As we know, domain names ending in ''. Com'', issued by private companies on the basis of "First come - first served". There is no guarantee that the domain names, including trademarks, can be registered only by owners brands. This lack of regulatory control hi to thriving business of cybersquatting, which is characterized by recording domain names, including trademarks well-known companies, individuals with a view to their subsequent sale to owners of trade marks ( Carson, Christensen, & Kandara, 2000 ). There is also similar to the conflict with the trademarks of inconsistency between domain names and other legitimate rights designation due to differences between the administrative system and the registration system. As noted by the World Organization for Intellectual Property Protection ( WIPO ), restrictions on the registration of domain names can have an impact on reducing the tension between domain names and intellectual rights собственность (Доклад № 5)
F. Fangfei Wang / International Journal of Information Management 26 (2006) 116–127 119
2.3. Legal protection
In response to the above domain names disputes, at the international level, the ICANN was formed in 1998 to take over responsibility for the governance of the DNS. With advice from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), ICANN developed a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. This policy finally adopted in October 1999, provides a mandatory administrative procedure for the resolution of disputes between trademark owners and domain name holders in cases where the domain name has been registered and
is being used in ‘‘bad faith’’ ( Clark, 2005 ). National approaches have kept up with the international development. In 1999, the US Congress passed legislation designed to curb cybersquatters, such as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) went into effect on 29 November 1999, amending
Section 43 of the Lanham/Trademark Act. On 30 September 2002, CNNIC approved and implemented the CNNIC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CNDRP). In September 2004, Nominet.UK released the second version of Dispute Resolution Service Policy (DRS Policy), which applies to all disputes filed on or after 25 October 2004. It could be regarded as an appendix to the Trade Marks Act 1994 governing domain names.
2.3 Законная защита
В ответ на вышеупомянутые Disputes about domain names, at the international level in 1998 was created the Association for Assigned Names and Numbers Internet ( ICANN ) to control the Domain Names ( DNS ). ICANN on the recommendation of WIPO developed E dinuyu policy for the resolution of disputes relating to Internet domain names. This policy has been fully adopted in October 1999, it aims to implementation of mandatory administrative procedures for making decisions regarding disputes between trademark holders and domain names in cases where domain names were registered and used "unfair» ( Clark, 2005 ). national approach to solving this problem does not lag behind in international development. In 1999, Congress passed laws to curb cybersquatters, For example, the Law on the Protection of users of electronic capture names (ACPA), which entered into force on 29 November 1999, amending the Lanham Act on Trade stamps. September 30, 2002 Center Network Internet-Information of China ( CNNIC ) approved and added to the policy resolution of disputes relating to Internet domain names (CNDRP). In September 2004, Nominet.UK released the second version of the dispute resolution policy associated with the provision of services (DRS Policy), circulated all the controversy, registered October 25, 2004 or later. It can be seen as a supplement to the Law on trademarks in 1994, controls the domain names.
0 comments:
Post a Comment