Xue Hong

— network space, did not take for granted trademark rights.
— in China, the rapid increase in the number of domain name disputes. More and more trademark owners filed a lawsuit to require the court to cancel the registration of the same domain name as their own. Supreme People’s court in July this year issued on the trial involving the domain name of the computer network of civil disputes, the interpretation of a number of issues, clear the scope of China’s judicial authorities to determine the domain name dispute. Although the standard of dealing with domain name disputes in the legal field has become more and more clear, but people still have different opinions about it. A popular argument is that as long as the registration of a trademark, on the course in the network space to occupy a seat, you can certainly beat others registered the same name. Is that true? Someone with certainty, and claimed that the United States Yinjingjudian, so.

— just look at a domain name dispute that the U.S. Court has just ruled. The conclusion of the case is precisely the existence of trademark rights, of course, can not be registered as a trademark to deprive others of the same name. In the case, the defendant J.B.Strickland is an independent computer consultant and software developer. In 1995, he wanted to build a website to apply for the registration of the domain name strickland.com, but the domain name has been registered. Since his childhood nickname is Strick, so he chose to register the domain name strick.com, the site is mainly used for his contact with customers and communication.

— is a company called Strick that produces tractors and trailers. It was contacted by the defendant 8 months after the registration of the domain name, and the defendant was asked to transfer the domain name to it. After being rejected by the defendant, the plaintiff to the identity of the Strick trademark of the defendant’s domain name registration organization NSI the domain name on the shelf. The defendant’s domain name has been on hold for 3 years. Until January 2000, NSI announced that because of its domain name dispute resolution policy changes, if the plaintiff can not provide evidence of the prosecution or complaint has been made, the defendant will be the domain name recovery. The plaintiff filed a complaint in accordance with the unified domain name dispute resolution mechanism in May 2000, but was defeated.

— plaintiff sued the U.S. court in June 2000. In August this year, the court heard the case dismissed the plaintiff’s allegations of unfair competition. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant’s behavior because the consumer confusion and misidentification. The software services provided by the defendant are completely different from those provided by the plaintiff, and the consumers will not be mistaken for the same source or authorization. General general consumers in the purchase of goods or services, all sources of goods or services to be paid attention to, and select a computer consultant or to buy a tractor of such a big deal, consumers to pay special attention to the source, so the possibility of confusion and the goods or services is very small. From an objective point of view, there was no evidence of any actual confusion during the 8 months of the defendant’s use of the domain name