yearbook 1998 / vi

AIPPI
ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE
POUR LA PROTECTION
DE LA PROPRIETE INDUSTRIELLE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR THE PROTECTION
OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY
INTERNATIONALE VEREINIGUNG
FÜR GEWERBLICHEN RECHTSSCHUTZ
YEARBOOK 1998 / VI
XXXVIITH CONGRESS - RIO DE JANEIRO 1998
(MAY 24-29, 1998)
GROUPS REPORTS Q 143:
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES, TRADEMARKS AND TRADE NAMES
The reports and the summaries from the National and Regional Groups are normally reproduced
without alteration in content, style and spelling.
Dans le cas normal, les rapports et les résumés des Groupes nationaux et régionaux sont publiés
sans correction du contenu, du style et de l'ortographie.
Die Berichte und Zusammenfassungen der Landes- und Regionalgruppen werden im Normalfall
ohne Korrekturen von Inhalt, Stil und Orthographie wiedergegeben.
The Editor
© AIPPI, Zurich 1998
ISBN No. 3.9050.2886.7
Edited in the name of AIPPI by J. David MEISSER, Klosters (Switzerland)
Price CHF 30.-; distribution free of charge to the members of AIPPI
Graphic and design: Silvia Pedrazzini, Design & Communication, 8806 Bäch (Switzerland)
Production: Gasser Print AG, 7000 Chur/Disentis (Switzerland)
XXXVIITH CONGRESS OF AIPPI
MAY 24-29, 1998
QUESTION Q 143
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES, TRADEMARKS AND TRADE NAMES
XXXVIIE CONGRES DE L'AIPPI
24-29 MAI 1998
QUESTION Q 143
NOMS DE DOMAINE INTERNET, MARQUES ET NOMS COMMERCIAUX
XXXVII. KONGRESS DER AIPPI
24.-29. MAI 1998
FRAGE Q 143
INTERNET DOMAIN NAMEN, MARKEN UND HANDELSNAMEN
3
Question Q 143
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
1.0
The Internet was initiated and organized by the Department of Defence of the USA
in the early 1970's to ensure that a communications system for defence purposes
would be available in the event of war or similar circumstances. In view of this function, the Internet was organized as a "web-like" network, with every location accessible by a multitude of alternative routes. After some years the defence part of the
Internet was separated from the civil part. The latter was initially the domain of the
global academic community. However, in the 1990's the Internet more and more
also became a commercial instrument, on which companies from every part of the
world could present themselves and offer products and services to the public.
1.1
The Internet is in fact a global network of numerous independent networks (a
"network of networks"), through which millions of computers that provide information (called "servers") are interconnected. Such a server may provide all kinds of
information, varying from many types of non-commercial information to offerings of
products and services. In order to get access to a particular Internet server one
must know its Internet Protocol (IP) address. Such IP-address is called a domain
name. Every Internet server has its own unique Internet domain name, through
which it can be located and accessed (comparable to the way a natural person can
be located and accessed by mail through his or her postal address) An example of
a domain name would be "shell.com".
1.2
There is a distinction between on the one hand top-level domains and on the other
hand second-level and sub-level domains.
1.3
The last part of a domain name (".com" in the above example) refers to the socalled top-level domain. There are two types of top-level domains, namely national
top-level domains and international top-level domains.
1.4
National top-level domains (also referred to as top-level country domains) consist of
a two-letter country code (e.g. "ca" for Canada and "zw" for Zimbabwe). The country code indicates in which country the server concerned is located.
1.5
International top-level domains (also referred to as generic top-level domains) do
not relate to a particular country, but to one of (currently) five generic categories:
".com" for commercial organizations, ".org" for miscellaneous, usually non-profit organizations, '.net" for network infrastructure machines and organizations, ".edu" for
(certain) educational institutions, and ".gov" for United States federal government
agencies (as mentioned above, the Internet originates from the U.S. government).
1.6
The second-level domain of a domain name usually consists of the trademark
and/or tradename of the holder of the domain name (e.g. shell.com held by Shell
5
Oil). A domain name may (but does not necessarily) have further sub-levels (e.g.
"oil.shell.com"). Sub-level domains are required if the domain name holder (e.g.
Shell Oil) has more than one server connected to the Internet (e.g. suppose Shell
Oil
has two Internet servers, then their respective IP-addresses could be
'oil.shell.com." and "chem.shell.com").
1.7
Domain names with an international top-level domain are assigned to applicants by
the private corporation Network So'utions, Inc. (NSI) of Herndon, Virginia, USA on
behalf of the Internet Network Information Center (InterNIC). InterNiC is a cooperative activity between the National Science Foundation (NSF), AT&T and the aforementioned NSI. On 11 March 1997 lnterNlC/NSI registered its one millionth active
Internet domain name.
1.8
Domain names with a national top-level domain are assigned by a national institution in the country involved, directly or indirectly authorized by the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (lANA), which is located at and operated by the Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern California. For instance, in The Netherlands domain names with the top-level domain ".nI" are assigned by the 'Stichting
Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland", which is authorized by the Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE), the registrar for the European region, which in turn is authorized by
lANA.
1.9
lt is important to note that the authority of the above-mentioned institutions to assign domain names (or, as the case may be, license other institutions to do the
same) is not based on a law or a treaty. lt is a de facto authority, resulting from the
practical necessity that the Internet has one single address system.
1.10 The domain name allocation system has two characteristics which appear to collide
with the general systems of trademark and tradename law throughout the world,
and result in a still rapidly increasing number of domain name disputes between
domain name holders and trademark/tradename owners.
First, each domain name must be absolutely unique (e.g. there can only be one
"shell.com"), whereas under the trademark and tradename systems in general there
can be a multitude of co-existing identical trademarks or tradenames, e.g. used for
different products or services, or used in different territories. Of all the companies
that own the identical trademark or tradename concerned, only one can own the
corresponding domain name.
Second, the technical domain name allocation system as such allows for the unrestricted registration of any domain name which is not completely identical to an earlier registered domain name and consequently does by no means prohibit the assignment of (even confusingly) similar domain names to companies that are in the
same business (e.g. "shetl.com" and "shel.com", respectively assigned to Shell Oil
and a new competitor), whereas the systems of trademark and tradename law (if
certain conditions are met) prohibit the use of, inter alia, confusingly similar trademarks or tradenames.
6
1.11
The various institutions responsible for the assignment of domain names generally
have adopted a passive attitude as to disputes between domain name holders and
owners of identical or similar trademarks and/or tradenames. The institutions consider themselves to be mere registrars and not enforcers of the law.
1.12
Recently, some of them have started to take on a somewhat more active role. Several institutions have adopted stricter registration conditions, in order to contribute
to the prevention or swift settlement of domain name disputes. Such conditions
may, for instance, include the obligation to declare or prove that the second-level
domain of the domain name applied for corresponds with the applicant's regular
tradename or trademark. However, most domain name registrars (including the InterNIC/NSI) still remain unwilling to act as arbiter of domain name disputes and
prefer to await the outcome of court or external arbitration proceedings.
1.13
Also very recently a number of other initiatives were launched in order to try and
tackle the rapidly increasing problems surrounding the assignment and use of Internet domain names. The most concrete initiative has been the establishment (by
the Internet Society) of the so-called International Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC). The
Committee has eleven members, including representatives from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the International Trademark Association
(INTA) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). On 4 February 1997
the IAHC announced a plan which includes (inter alia) the following measures: the
creation of international panels of experts to resolve disputes and challenges to
domain name registrations (administered by WIPO), the introduction of seven new
generic top-level domains (in addition to the five existing ones), and the appointment of up to 30 new domain name registrars.
1.14
Apart from participating in the above-mentioned IAHC, WIPO itself has undertaken
certain activities with respect to domain name issues. The International Bureau of
WIPO has convened a meeting of consultants on trademarks and internet domain
names, which examined possible solutions for the problems which have arisen in
this area. The group of consultants consists of, inter alia, government trademark
and tradename policy representatives, representatives of the private trademark legal community, representatives of industry, and a representative from the ITU.
1.15
On February 12 to 14, 1997, a first meeting of the group of consultants was held at
WIPO-headquarters in Geneva. In light of the discussions of the consultants during
said meeting, WIPO expects to take the following actions:
to develop guidelines for the dispute procedures which are described in the
IAHC final report and which are to be administered by the WIPO arbitration
and mediation center, including procedures for administrative domain name
challenge panels;
to investigate possible avenues for international harmonization of assignment procedures concerning all top-level domains;
to convene a consultative meeting, to which all WIPO-member states and
concerned inter-governmental organizations and non-governmental organi7
zations would be invited, in late May 1997 to further discuss issues of trademarks and Internet domain names.
1.16
Also the Commission of the European Union and various non-governmental organizations such as the INTA and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), are in
the process of studying the domain name-trademark issue.
1.17
The above summarizes the situation at the end of March 1997. It certainly will have
been further developed by the time Group Reports will be made and at the time this
Question will be discussed at the Congress of Rio de Janeiro in May 1998. The developments may well have led to a quite different picture.
I.
Conflicts between domain names, trademarks and tradenames
2.
Trademark law
2.1
Does a domain name constitute a trademark?
lt is generally acknowledged that domain names do not merely serve as the IPaddress of a particular server connected to the Internet, but often also serve as a
means for distinction of the domain name holder's products and services.
2.2
Such a domain name could be a candidate for trademark protection if under the
applicable trademark law a combination of numbers and words and/or letters (some
tradenames do not consist of words but of letters, e.g. IBM, the domain name then
being "ibm.com"), serving to distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise, can
constitute a valid trademark. lt may vary from country to country under which circumstances the domain name can be deemed to constitute a valid trademark.
2.3
In general a domain name will sooner be deemed to qualify as a candidate for
trademark protection, if the second-level domain part thereof is already used, or
even also registered, as a trademark independent from the registration and use of
the domain name.
2.4
In most countries registration of the trademark is a requIrement for trademark protection. This requirement is not met by merely having the domain name registered
with the relevant domain name registrar. Separate registration of the domain name
with the authorized trademark office is required.
Absolute invalidity
2.5
Most trademark laws provide for a number of grounds for absolute invalidity of a
trademark, which are wholly or partly based upon the invalidity grounds mentioned
in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (the Paris Convention). In general, these invalidity grounds (such as breach of morality or likelihood of
deception of the public) also apply if trademark protection is sought for domain
names.
8
Priority and bad faith
2.6
In many countries the granting of trademark rights is based upon the principle of
"first come, first served". Generally, the date of filing of the application is decisive.
However, most systems recognize an important exception to this principle in case
the filing was effected in bad faith, e.g. because the trademark concerned had already been used by another party, while the applicant was (or should have been)
aware of said use. The prior use of a domain name which includes the trademark
which was subsequently filed by another party, may (under circumstances) constitute sufficient use in order to qualify said subsequent filing by that other party as a
filing in bad faith. lt may differ from country to country how soon the filing party must
be deemed to have been aware of the use of the identical or similar domain name
on the Internet.
2.7
The registration of a domain name with an Internet domain name registrar (such as
nterNIC/NSI) does not create a right of priority as provided for in the Paris Convention or in the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks.
Maintaining use
2.8
Under many jurisdictions a trademark, in order to be maintained as one's trademark
right, must be used in a normal way and must continue to be so used. Under certain circumstances, which may vary from country to country, the use of a domain
name as an IP-address of a server on which products and/or services are offered
for which the domain name is registered as a trademark, will, in principle, qualify as
such maintaining use. However, the maintaining use must have occurred in the territory to which the trademark right pertains. It can be argued that this requirement is
automatically met if it concerns the use of Internet domain names, in view of the
fact that through the use of the domain name the server of which the domain name
is the address can be accessed from every country in the world, including the territory concerned. However, it may well be that a stronger linkage is required between
the territory and the use of the domain name, e.g. in the form of actual sales of the
products and/or services offered on the server of which the domain name is the address to customers located in the territory.
2.9
If the domain name as such is not registered as a trademark, but only the secondlevel domain name thereof (e.g. not "shell.com" but only "shell"), the use of the do-
main name "shell.com" may nevertheless constitute (or at least contribute to)
maintaining use of the trademark included therein.
Infringement by a domain name
2.10
In principle, the use of an Internet domain name can constitute an infringement of
another party's rights to a trademark which is identical or similar to the domain
name or the second-level domain name thereof. This will in particular be the case if
the domain name serves to distinguish goods or services which are identical or
similar to the goods or services for which the trademark has been registered and
used. However, a broader scope of protection (which, for instance, extends to non-
similar goods or services or which offers protection against the use of domain
9
names that do not serve to distinguish any goods or services at all) may apply, depending on the circumstances of the case and the law applicable.
2.11
Since trademark rights are territorial rights, the infringement of such rights must
(apart from the special protection of famous or well-known trademarks) occur within
the territory to which the rights pertain. Again, (see 2.8 above), it can be argued that
with respect to the global nature of the Internet, the use of an Internet domain name
which is identical or similar to a trademark automatically constitutes an infringement
of that trademark in all of the territories in which it is registered. In some jurisdictions, on the other hand, additional requirements must be met in order to establish
that the use of an Internet domain name is deemed to infringe trademark rights in
that particular country. One such requirement could be the proof that the offerings
of products and/or services by the server of which the domain name is the address,
are directed (inter alia, or even specifically) to the territory concerned.
Disclaimer
2.12
This also raises the question whether there are measures which can be taken by
the domain name holder in order to prevent that his use of the domain name can be
deemed to constitute infringing use of a trademark in territories where the domain
name holder has no (significant) commercial interests. Will the use of a disclaimer
(e.g. "the products offered for sale on this server can not be purchased by residents
of the following countries: (...)') be effective?
Does the use on Internet of a domain name which is identical or similar to a
service trademark registered for communication means constitute infringement?
2.13 A particular trademark question arises when a domain name is used on Internet if
that domain name is identical or similar to a service mark which has been registered for means of communication, for instance the name of a daily paper or of a
periodical (LE MONDE, THE ECONOMIST). Certainly Internet is a means of communication. Therefore, it might be argued that using a domain name e.g. LE
MONDE or THE ECONOMIST, for the promotion of whatever products or services,
constitutes at the same time infringement of the service marks LE MONDE or THE
ECONOMIST because the domain name is used as a key made available to the
public for opening communication services providing the required information on the
Internet.
This problem is hardly ever raised in doctrine or case law on domain names but it
might be worthwhile to establish the exact answer to this particular question.
3.
Tradename law
Does a domain name constitute a tradename?
3.1
Companies often prefer to use their tradename as a second-level domain name
(e.g. "shell.com").
10
3.2
The question arises whether the mere registration and use of an Internet domain
name could be sufficient to create (and maintain) a tradename right to the secondlevel domain name included therein, and, if so, under which conditions this would
be the case. In many jurisdictions it will be decisive whether the (relevant) public is
of the opinion that the (second-level) domain name represents the name of the
company that is offering the products or services. However, other criteria may apply.
3.3
The result of the global nature of the Internet is that the domain name which includes the company name of the domain name holder is available (to the public
who wants access to that company's server) in all territories in the world. This could
mean, for instance, that if under the law of a country a trade name right is created
by the mere use thereof, without any registration formalities being required, the
registration and use of the Internet domain name might be sufficient to constitute a
valid tradename right in that country.
Absolute invalidity
3.4
The same as said hereinbefore under 2.5 as to trademarks applies in most tradename laws also to tradenames. This has its effect on deceptive or immoral domain
names.
Infringement by a domain name
3.5
When dealing with the question whether the use of a domain name on the Internet
infringes another party's tradename, again the issue of territoriality plays an important role. Does the global nature of the Internet imply that the domain name infringes the right to an indentical or similar tradename in any country where such
right exists? Or must there be a specific relation (of some sort) between the territory
and the use of the domain name (or the offerings on the server of which the domain
name is the address), e.g. if it is clear, for instance by the use of the language, that
the goods and services are also offered to the public in that specific territory?
Disclaimer
3.6
Again, the question rises whether there are measures (such as e.g. a disclaimer)
which can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that his use of
the domain name can be deemed to infringe another party's tradename in territories
where the domain name holder has no (significant) commercial interests.
4.
Unfair competition/tort
4.1
In some situations the registration and use of a domain name which is identical or
similar to another party's trademark and/or tradename may be successfully attacked on the basis of general rules of unfair competition or tort.
4.2
This may in particular be possible if there is an element of bad faith on the side of
the domain name holder, e.g. if the domain name holder has systematically registered various famous trademarks or tradenames as domain names and has attempted to sell those registrations to the respective trademark/tradename holders
(a practice referred to as "domain name grabbing").
11
Sanctions
5.1
In proceedings which are based on trademark law, tradename law and/or unfair
competition/tort rules of court, in general, can provide injunctive relief, and award
claims tor monetary damages. In some systems the court also has the power to order the transfer of an infringing domain name from the infringing party to the party
whose rights are infringed.
5.2
Some domain name registrars apply general conditions/regulations which give them
the right to take certain measures (e.g. the stay, annulment or transfer of a domain
name registration) if it appears (e.g. through a court ruling or an arbitral award) that
a third party's rights are infringed.
International private law
6.1
Due to the global character of the Internet, infringement proceedings with respect to
domain names often involve international private law issues.
6.2
Under many systems the applicable law is the law of the territory for which protection is sought. For instance, in a dispute regarding the infringement of a German
trademark right by an Internet domain name which is the IP-address for a server located in Paris and owned by a French company, German trademark law will apply.
However, in some countries other conflict wies may prevail.
6.3
With respect to the determination of the competent court some jurisdictions provide
for specific rules for trademark or tradename infringement proceedings. In other
countries general international private law rules must be applied in order to determine which court is competent.
II.
Questions to the Groups
7.1
The Groups are invited to give the answers under their national or regional laws to
the following questions and to illustrate their answers with case law particularly the
case law on domain names.
7.2
The questions are:
Introduction
(a)
The Groups are invited to comment on the above described endeavours:
to prevent legal domain name problems by adoption of stricter registration conditions (cfr. hereinabove 1.12);
to solve such problems outside the courts (cfr. 1.13 a.f.);
and to report on the endeavours and actual measures already taken in
their own country or region, as well as to make their own suggestions
of comparable measures or other solutions of the specific domain
name problems.
12
Trademark law
Can a domain name be a suitable candidate for trademark protection, and if
so, under which conditions? Please elaborate on the specific problems or
peculiarities which may arise in that respect (cfr. 2.1-2.4).
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trademarks also apply to
domain names (cfr. 2.5)?
Can the prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark constitute
sufficient use in order to qualify the subsequent filing by another party of said
trademark as a filing in bad faith (cfr. 2.6 and 7)? If so, what are the requirements for such sufficient use?
Can the use of a domain name as an IP-address of a server on which products and/or services are offered for which the domain name is registered as
a trademark qualify as maintaining use of that trademark (cfr. 2.8 and 9)?
Is the requirement that maintaining use must occur in the territory of the
trademark automatically met as a consequence of the global nature of the
Internet? If not, please describe which further requirements must be met (cfr.
2.8)?
Can an Internet domain name infringe another party's rights to a trademark?
If so, under which conditions? Please elaborate on the scope of protection of
trademarks against domain names and deal in your answer also with famous
and well-known trademarks (cfr. 2.10 and 11).
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent
that his use of the domain name constitutes infringement of a trademark in
territories where the domain name holder has no commercial interests?
Please elaborate on the contents of e.g. disclaimers (cfr. 2.12).
What is the answer to the question raised hereinbefore under 2.13 as to the
use of a domain name on Internet for whatever product or service if that domain name is identical or similar to a third party's mark which has been registered for means of communication?
Tradename law
Can the registration and use of an Internet domain name be sufficient to create, and maintain, a tradename right to the second-level domain name included therein? Is, in view of the global nature of the Internet, any use of a
domain name which includes the company name of the domain name holder
sufficient? If not, which additional requirements need to be fulfilled (cfr. 3.2
and 3)?
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trade names also apply
to domain names (cfr. 3.4)?
13
(I)
Does the global nature of the Internet imply that the normal criteria of infringement of a tradename apply to any use of an identical or similar domain
name? Or must there be a specific relation (of some sort) between your
Group's country or region and the use of the domain name (or the offerings
which are made on the server of which the domain name is the address; cfr.
3.5)?
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent
that his use of the domain name infringes another party's tradename in territories where the domain name holder has no (significant) commercial interests? Again: would the use of a disclaimer be effective? If so, please elaborate on the contents of such disclaimer (cfr. 3.6).
Unfair competition
Can the registration and use of a domain name which is identical or similar to
another party's trademark and/or tradename be successfully attacked on the
basis of general rules of unfair competition or tort? If so, under which conditions? If an element of bad faith is required, please elaborate on the nature
thereof and provide examples. Please discuss the legal possibilities to deal
with the practice generally referred to as "domain name grabbing" (cfr. 4.1
and 2).
Sanctions
Which sanctions can a court order against the holder of a domain name
which infringes the trademark or tradename rights of another party or which
is otherwise unlawful vis-à-vis said party? Please indicate whether the court
has the power to directly order the transfer of such domain name from the
infringing party to the trademark/tradename owner (cfr. 5.1 and 2).
International private law
Which rules of the international private law of your Group's country or region
apply in order to determine the applicable law in a dispute regarding the infringement of a trademark or tradename by an Internet domain name (cfr. 6.1
and 2)?
Which international private law rules apply in order to determine which court
is competent to deal with the above-mentioned dispute (cfr. 6.3)?
14
Question Q 143
Noms de domaine Internet, marques et noms commerciaux
1.0
Introduction
Internet a été lancé et organisé au début des années 1970 par le Ministère de la
Défense des USA qui voulait être sûr de disposer, en cas de guerre ou de circonstances analogues, d'un système de communications servant à des fins militaires.
Pour assumer ces fonctions, Internet était organisé comme un réseau "en forme de
toile d'araignée", dont chaque point était accessible par une multitude de chemins.
Quelques années plus tard, la partie militaire d'internet fut séparée de sa partie civile. Cette dernière fut, d'abord, réservée à l'ensemble de la communauté universitaire. Toutefois, dans les années 1990, Internet devint de plus en plus en un outil
commercial, sur lequel des sociétés du monde entier ont pu se présenter au public
et offrir des produits et des services.
1.1
En fait, Internet est un réseau global regroupant de nombreux réseaux indépendants (un "réseau de réseaux"), par lequel des millions d'ordinateurs fournissant
des informations (et appelés "serveurs" ou "hôtes") sont interconnectés. Un serveur
peut fournir toute sorte de données, allant de nombreux types d'informations non
commerciales à l'offre de produits et de services. Pour accéder à un serveur Internet individuel, il faut connaître son adresse Internet (lP). Cette adresse IP s'appelle
un nom de domaine. Chaque serveur Internet a son propre et unique nom de domaine Internet qui permet de le localiser et d'y accéder (et qui est comparable à la
façon dont on peut localiser et accéder à une personne physique par courrier par
son adresse postale). Comme exemple d'un nom de domaine, on pourrait donner
"shell.com".
1.2
II y a une distinction entre, d'une part, des domaines de premier niveau et, d'autre
part, des domaines de deuxième niveau et de sous-niveaux.
1.3
La dernière partie d'un nom de domaine (".com" dans l'exemple ci-dessus) se réfère aux domaines dits de premier niveau. Il y a deux types de domaines de premier niveau, les domaines de premier niveau nationaux et les domaines de premier
niveau internationaux.
1.4
Les domaines de premier niveau nationaux (également appelés domaines de premier niveau de pays) consistent en un code de pays à deux lettres (par exemple
"ca" pour Canada et "zw" pour Zimbawe). Le code de pays indique le pays où se
trouve la machine en question.
1.5
Les domaines de premier niveau internationaux (également appelés domaines de
premier niveau génériques) ne se rapportent pas à un pays en particulier, mais à
l'une des cinq catégories génériques (usuelles): ".com" pour des organisations
commerciales, ".org" pour diverses organisations, en principe sans but lucratif,
".net" pour des machines ou organisations servant d'infrastructure de réseau, ".edu"
15
pour (certaines) institutions d'éducation, et ".gov" pour les administrations du gouvernement fédéral des États-Unis (comme mentionné plus haut, Internet est une
création du gouvernement US).
1.6
Le second niveau d'un nom de domaine consiste habituellement dans la marque
et/ou le nom commercial du titulaire du nom de domaine (par exemple shell.com
est celui de Shell Oil). Un nom de domaine peut (mais ne doit pas nécessairement)
comporter, en outre, des sous-niveaux par exemple "oil.shell.com". Les domaines
de sous-niveau sont requis si le titulaire du nom de domaine (par exemple Shell Oil)
a plus d'une machine reliée à Internet (supposons par exemple que Shell Oil ait
deux machines Internet: leurs adresses IP pourraient être, respectivement,
"oil.shell.com" et "chem.shell.com").
1 .7
Les noms de domaine avec un domaine de premier niveau international sont attri-
bués aux requérants par la société privée Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) de
Herndon, Virginie, USA, au nom de l'internet Network Information Center
(interNIC). InterNIC est un programme de coopération entre la National Science
Foundation (NSF), ATAT et NSI précitée. Le 11 mars 1997, lnterNlC/NSI enregistrait son millionième nom de domaine Internet en activité.
1.8
Les noms de domaine avec un domaine de premier niveau national sont attribués
par une institution nationale du pays concerné, directement ou indirectement déléguée par l'internet Assigned Numbers Authority (lANA) qui a son siège auprès de
son gestionnaire, l'information Sciences Institute de l'Université de Californie du
Sud. Ainsi, les noms de domaine néerlandais avec le domaine de premier niveau
".nI" sont attribués par le "Stichting Internet Domainregistratie Nederiand", délégué
par les Réseaux IP Européens (RIPE), gestionnaire de registre pour la région Europe, eux-mêmes délégués par lANA.
1.9
II importe de noter que le pouvoir des institutions précitées d'attribuer des noms de
domaine (ou, comme cela peut être le cas, d'autoriser d'autres institutions à faire de
même) ne se fonde pas sur une loi ou sur un traité. II s'agit d'un pouvoir de fait qui
résulte d'une nécessité pratique, car Internet n'a qu'un seul et unique système
d'adresses.
1.10
Le système d'attribution des noms de domaine a deux caractéristiques qui paraissent se heurter aux systèmes généraux des marques et des noms commerciaux
appliqués à travers le monde, et il débouche sur un nombre toujours rapidement
croissant de litiges sur les noms de domaine, litiges opposant des titulaires de
noms de domaine à des détenteurs de marques/ noms commerciaux.
D'abord, chaque nom de domaine doit être absolument unique (par exemple il ne
peut y avoir qu'un "shell.com") tandis que, selon les systèmes de marques et de
noms commerciaux, il peut, en général, y avoir coexistence d'une multitude de
marques et de noms commerciaux identiques, utilisés par exemple pour différents
produits ou services, ou utilisés dans des territoires différents. Entre toutes les sociétés qui possèdent les marques ou les noms commerciaux identiques dont il
s'agit, une seule peut avoir le nom de domaine correspondant.
16
En second lieu, le système technique d'attribution des noms de domaine permet,
en soi, d'enregistrer sans restriction tout nom de domaine qui n'est pas complètement identique à un nom de domaine précédemment enregistré et, par conséquent,
n'empêche aucunement l'attribution de noms de domaines similaires, (même prêtant à confusion), à des sociétés qui ont la même activité (par exemple "shell.com."
et shel.com", attribués respectivement à Shell Oil et à un nouveau concurrent); au
contraire, le droit des marques et des noms commerciaux interdit, (si certaines
conditions sont remplies), notamment l'utilisation de marques et de noms commerciaux susceptibles de prêter à confusion.
1.11
Les diverses institutions compétentes pour l'attribution de noms de domaine ont
généralement adopté une attitude passive devant les litiges entre titulaires de noms
de domaine et détenteurs de marques et/ou noms commerciaux similaires. Les institutions se considèrent elles-mêmes comme n'étant que des gestionnaires de registres et non des exécutants de la loi.
1.12
Quelques-unes d'entre elles ont, récemment, commencé à assumer un rôle un peu
plus actif. Plusieurs institutions ont adopté des conditions plus strictes d'enregistrement, en vue de contribuer à prévenir ou à régler rapidement des litiges sur les
noms de domaine. Ces conditions peuvent, par exemple, inclure l'obligation de déclarer ou de prouver que le domaine de deuxième niveau du nom de domaine demandé par le requérant correspond au nom commercial ou à la marque dont il est
le titulaire régulier. Nombreux gestionnaires de noms de domaine (y compris InterNIC/NSI) restent, cependant, opposés à agir en qualité d'arbitres dans les litiges
sur les noms de domaine et préfèrent attendre l'issue de procédures extérieures,
judiciaires ou arbitrales.
1.13
Très récemment aussi, de nombreuses autres initiatives ont été lancées afin d'essayer de maîtriser la rapide croissance des problèmes entourant l'attribution et l'utilisation des noms de domaine Internet. L'initiative la plus concrète a été l'établissement (par l'internet Society) d'un comité dit Comité international ad hoc
(International Ad-Hoc Committee - IAHC). Le Comité a onze membres, y compris
des représentants de l'Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle (OMPI),
de l'international Trademark Association (INTA) et de l'Union Internationale des
Télécommunications (UIT). Le 4 février 1997, I'IAHC annonça un plan qui inclut
(entre autres) les mesures suivantes: la création de groupes internationaux d'experts chargés de résoudre les litiges et les oppositions suscités par l'enregistrement
des noms de domaine (ces groupes étant gérés par l'OMPI), l'introduction de sept
nouveaux domaines génériques de premier niveau (en sus des cinq existants), et la
désignation d'au plus 30 nouveaux gestionnaires des noms de domaine.
1.14
En sus de sa participation à l'IAHC précité, l'OMPI a elle-même entrepris certaines
activités concernant les litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine. Le Bureau International de l'OMPI a organisé une rencontre de consultants sur le thème des marques et
des noms de domaine Internet, laquelle a examiné les solutions possibles pour les
problèmes qui se sont posés dans ce contexte. Le groupe de consultants se compose, entre autres, de représentants de la politique gouvernementale des marques
et noms commerciaux, de représentant de la communauté juridique privée des
marques, de représentants de l'industrie et d'un représentant de l'UIT.
17
1.15
Du 12 au 14février1997, une première réunion du groupe de consultants se tint au
siège de lOMPI, à Genève. Au vu des discussions des consultants lors de cette
rencontre, l'OMPI entend mener les actions suivantes:
d'établir des lignes directrices pour les procédures contentieuses, telles que
décrites dans le rapport final de l'IAHC et dont la gestion devra être assurée
par le Centre d'arbitrage de l'OMPI, y compris des procédures pour des
commissions administratives chargées de régler les oppositions à des noms
de domaine;
rechercher les moyens possibles pour l'harmonisation internationale des
procédures d'attribution concernant tous les domaines de premier niveau;
réunir, à la fin mai 1997, une assemblée consultative à laquelle seraient invités tous les Etats membres de l'OMPI et les organisations gouvernementales et non gouvernementales concernées afin d'approfondir les discussions
sur les questions des marques et des noms de domaine Internet.
1.16
La Commission de l'Union Européenne et diverses organisations non gouvernementales, telles que l'INTA et la Chambre de Commerce internationale (CCI) sont
aussi en train d'étudier la question des relations entre les marques et les noms de
domaine Internet.
1.17
Ce qui précède résume la situation à fin mars 1997. Elle aura certainement évolué
au moment où seront faits les rapports des groupes et au moment où cette question sera discutée au congrès de Rio de Janeiro en mai 1998. Les développements
à venir pourront fort bien avoir abouti à une situation entièrement différente.
I.
Conflits entre noms de domaine, marques et noms commerciaux
2.
Droit des marques
2.1
Un nom de domaine peut-il constituer une marque?
II est généralement admis que les noms de domaine ne servent pas uniquement
d'adresse IP d'un serveur particulier relié à Internet, mais servent souvent de
moyen pour distinguer les produits et services du titulaire de ce nom de domaine.
2.2
Un tel nom de domaine pourrait constituer un candidat de marque si, selon le droit
des marques applicable, une combinaison de chiffres et de mots et/ou de lettres
(certains noms commerciaux ne consistent pas en mots mais en lettres, par exemple IBM, dont le nom de domaine est, dès lors, 'ibm.com"), servant à distinguer les
biens et les services d'une entreprise, peut constituer une marque valable. Les
conditions selon lesquelles un nom de domaine peut constituer une marque valable
peuvent varier d'un pays à l'autre.
2.3
Un nom de domaine pourrait plus facilement bénéficier la protection des marques si
sa partie de deuxième niveau est déjà utilisée, ou même déjà également enregistrée, comme marque indépendamment de l'enregistrement et de l'utilisation du nom
de domaine.
18
2.4
Dans la plupart de pays, l'enregistrement de la marque est une condition de sa
protection. Cette exigence n'est pas remplie du simple fait que le nom de domaine
a été enregistré auprès du gestionnaire du registre des noms de domaine concerné. Il faut un enregistrement séparé du nom de domaine auprès de l'office compétent pour l'enregistrement des marques.
Nullité absolue
2.5
Beaucoup de législations sur les marques prévoient un certain nombre de motifs de
nullité absolue d'une marque; ces motifs se basent entièrement ou partiellement sur
ceux prévus dans la Convention de Paris pour la protection de la propriété industrielle (la Convention de Paris). En général, ces motifs d'invalidité (tels que contraire
aux bonnes moeurs ou susceptibles d'être déceptifs) sont aussi applicables si la
protection des marques est demandée pour des noms de domaine.
Priorité et mauvaise foi
2.6
Dans beaucoup de pays, l'octroi des droits de marque est basé sur le principe
"premier arrivé, premier servi". La date du dépôt de la demande est généralement
décisive. Beaucoup de systèmes admettent, néanmoins, une importante exception
à ce principe dans le cas ou le dépôt a été fait de mauvaise foi, parce que la marque concernée avait déjà été utilisée par un tiers et que le requérant était (ou aurait
dû être) au courant de cette utilisation. L'usage antérieur du nom de domaine incluant la marque qui a été ultérieurement déposée par un tiers peut (selon les circonstances) constituer un usage suffisant pour qualifier de dépôt de mauvaise foi
un tel dépôt subséquent par un tiers. Le point de savoir à partir de quand le déposant doit être considéré comme étant au courant de l'usage du nom de domaine
identique ou similaire sur Internet peut varier d'un pays à l'autre.
2.7
L'enregistrement d'un nom de domaine auprès d'un service d'enregistrement de
noms de domaine Internet (tel que lnterNlC/NSI) ne crée pas un droit de priorité au
sens de la Convention de Paris ou de l'Arrangement de Madrid concernant l'enregistrement international des marques.
Usage assurant le maintien de la marque
2.8
Dans de nombreuses législations, une marque doit, pour être maintenue en tant
que droit de marque, avoir été utilisée d'une façon normale et continuer à être utilisée de la sorte. Dans certaines circonstances, qui peuvent varier d'un pays à l'autre, l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine comme adresse IP d'un serveur sur lequel
sont offerts des produits et/ou des services pour lesquels le nom de domaine est
enregistré comme marque sera, en principe, considéré comme constituant un tel
usage à titre de marque. Cette utilisation doit, néanmoins, être intervenue dans le
territoire où existe le droit de marque. On peut soutenir que cette exigence sera
automatiquement satisfaite en ce qui concerne l'usage des noms de domaine Internet, étant donné le fait que, par l'utilisation du nom de domaine, le serveur dont iI
constitue l'adresse est accessible depuis chaque pays du monde, y compris le territoire concerné, Il serait toutefois possible qu'un lien plus étroit soit exigé entre le
territoire et l'usage du nom de domaine, par exemple sous la forme de ventes ef-
19
fectives des produits et/ou des services offerts sur le serveur dont le nom de domaine est l'adresse pour des clients situés dans le territoire.
2.9
Si ce n'est pas le nom de domaine en tant que tel, mais seulement le deuxième
niveau de ce nom de domaine qui est enregistré comme marque (par exemple non
pas "shell.com" mais seulement "shell"), l'utilisation du nom de domaine 'shell.com"
peut tout de même constituer (ou au moins contribuer à former) l'usage exigé pour
le maintien de la marque.
Contrefaçon par un nom de domaine
2.10
En principe, l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine Internet peut constituer une violation
des droits d'un tiers sur une marque qui est identique ou similaire au nom de domaine ou au nom de domaine de deuxième niveau de celui-ci. Ce sera, en particulier, le cas si le nom de domaine sert à distinguer des biens ou des services qui
sont identiques au similaires à ceux pour lesquels la marque a été enregistrée et
utilisée. Cependant une protection plus étendue (incluant, par exemple, des biens
ou des services non similaires ou qui garantit contre l'utilisation de noms de domaine qui ne servent pas à distinguer des biens ou des services) peut exister, en
fonction des circonstances et du droit applicable.
2.11
Étant donné que les droits de marque ont une portée territoriale, la violation de tels
droits doit (hormis la protection spéciale des marques notoires et de haute renommée) intervenir dans le territoire pour lequel ces droits existent. On peut arguer, ici
encore (voir 2.8 ci-dessus), qu'au vu de la nature globale d'internet, l'utilisation d'un
nom de domaine Internet identique ou similaire à une marque constitue automatiquement une violation de cette marque dans tous les pays où elle est enregistrée.
Dans plusieurs législations, d'autre part, des exigences supplémentaires doivent
être satisfaites pour établir que l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine Internet est à considérer comme une violation d'un droit de marques dans ce pays. L'une de ces exigences pourrait être la preuve que l'offre de produits et/ou de services sur le serveur dont le nom de domaine est l'adresse, est destinée (entre autres ou spécifiquement) au territoire concerné.
Limitation
2.12
Cela pose également la question de savoir quelles mesures le titulaire du nom de
domaine peut prendre afin d'éviter que son utilisation du nom de domaine soit réputée constituer un usage contrefaisant de la marque dans des territoire où le titulaire du nom de domaine n'a pas d'intérêts commerciaux (significatifs). L'usage
d'une réserve (par exemple, "les produits offerts en vente sur ce site ne peuvent
être acquis par des résidents des pays ci-après: (...)", est-elle efficace?
L'utilisation sur Internet d'un nom de domaine qui est identique ou similaire à
une marque de service enregistrée pour des moyens de communication
constitue-t-elle une contrefaçon?
2.13
Une question particulière se pose, en droit des marques, quand un nom de domaine est utilisé sur Internet, si ce nom de domaine est identique ou similaire à une
marque de service qui a été enregistrée pour des moyens de communication, par
20
exemple le nom d'un quotidien ou d'un périodique (LE MONDE, THE ECONOMIST). Internet est certainement un moyen de communication. On pourrait donc
soutenir que l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine tel que par exemple LE MONDE ou
THE ECONOMIST, pour la promotion de n'importe quels produits ou services,
constitue simultanément une violation des marques de service LE MONDE ou THE
ECONOMIST, parce que le nom de domaine est utilisé comme une clef rendue accessible au public pour l'ouverture de services de communication fournissant l'information demandée sur Internet.
Ce problème est rarement posé en doctrine et en jurisprudence, mais il pourrait
être utile de déterminer la réponse exacte à cette question particulière.
3.
Droit des noms commerciaux
Un nom de domaine constitue-t-il un nom commercial?
3.1
Des sociétés préfèrent souvent utiliser leur nom commercial comme nom de domaine de deuxième niveau (par exemple "shell.com").
3.2
La question se pose de savoir si le simple enregistrement et l'usage d'un nom de
domaine Internet pourraient suffire à créer (ou maintenir) un droit au nom commercial inclus dans le deuxième niveau de ce nom de domaine et, si oui, à quelles
conditions ce serait le cas. Dans plusieurs législations, le point décisif pourrait être
celui de savoir si le public concerné est de l'avis que le nom de domaine de
deuxième niveau représente le nom de la société qui offre les produits et les services. D'autres critères peuvent cependant s'appliquer.
3.3
La conséquence du caractère mondial d'Internet est que le nom de domaine qui
inclut le nom de la société du titulaire du nom de domaine est utilisable (par le public qui désire accéder au serveur de cette société) dans tous les territoires du
monde. Cela pourrait signifier, par exemple, que si, d'après la loi d'un pays, le droit
à un nom commercial est créé par le seul usage de celui-ci, sans que des formalités d'enregistrement soient nécessaires à cet égard, l'enregistrement et l'utilisation
d'un nom de domaine Internet pourrait suffire à constituer valablement un droit à ce
nom commercial dans ce pays.
Nullité absolue
3.4
Ce qui a été dit ci-dessus sous 2.5 à propos des marques vaut également pour les
noms commerciaux, en vertu des législations sur les noms commerciaux. Cela
s'applique aux noms de domaine contraires aux bonnes moeurs ou déceptifs.
Contrefaçon par un nom de domaine
3.5
Quand on traite la question de savoir si l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine Internet
porte atteinte au nom commercial d'un tiers, le problème de la territorialité joue un
rôle important. Le caractère mondial d'Internet implique-t-il que le nom de domaine
porte atteinte au droit à un nom commercial identique ou similaire dans un autre
pays où existe un tel droit? Ou doit-il y avoir une relation spécifique (d'une certaine
sorte) entre le territoire et l'utilisation du nom de domaine (ou l'offre sur le serveur
21
dont le nom de domaine est l'adresse), par exemple s'il est clair, au vu de la langue
utilisée, que les biens et les services sont aussi offerts au public dans ce territoire
spécifique?
Limitation
3.6
Se pose à nouveau la question de savoir quelles mesures (par exemple une réserve) le titulaire du nom de domaine peut prendre pour éviter que son utilisation
du nom de domaine soit réputée constituer une atteinte au nom commercial d'un
tiers dans des territoire ou le titulaire du nom de domaine n'a pas d'intérêts commerciaux (significatifs).
Concurrence déloyale/faute
4.1
Dans certaines situations, l'enregistrement et l'utilisation d'un nomde domaine
identique ou similaire à une marque et/ou à un nom commercial d'un tiers peut être
contesté avec succès sur la base des règles générales sur la concurrence déloyale
ou la faute.
4.2
Cela sera notamment possible s'il existe un élément de mauvaise foi de la part du
titulaire du nom de domaine, par exemple si le titulaire du nom de domaine a sys-
tématiquement fait enregistrer comme noms de domaine des marques ou des
noms commerciaux notoires et a essayé de vendre ces enregistrements aux détenteurs de ces marques/noms commerciaux (pratique dénommée "captation de
noms de domaine").
Sanctions
5.1
Dans les procédures fondées sur les lois sur les marques, les lois sur les noms
commerciaux et/ou les règles sur la concurrence déloyale/la faute, un tribunal peut,
en général, rendre un jugement prononçant l'interdiction, et ordonnant des dommages-intérêts. Dans certains systèmes, le tribunal a aussi le pouvoir d'ordonner le
transfert d'un nom de domaine constituant une telle atteinte, en l'enlevant à la partie auteur de l'atteinte pour l'attribuer à la partie dont les droits ont été violés.
5.2
Des services d'enregistrement de noms de domaine appliquent des conditions générales/règlements généraux qui leur donnent le droit de prendre certaines mesures (par exemple différer, annuler ou transférer l'enregistrement d'un nom de domaine) s'il apparaît (par exemple au vu d'une décision judiciaire ou d'une sentence
arbitrale) que les droits d'un tiers ont été violés.
Droit international privé
6.1
Étant donné le caractère mondial d'Internet, des procédures en contrefaçon concernant des noms de domaine impliquent souvent des questions de droit international privé.
6.2
Selon plusieurs systèmes, le droit applicable est celui du territoire pour lequel la
protection est invoquée. Par exemple dans un litige concernant la contrefaçon
d'une marque allemande par un nom de domaine Internet qui est l'adresse IP d'un
serveur situé à Paris et appartenant à une société française, la législation alle22
mande sera applicable. D'autres règles de conflits de lois pourront prévaloir dans
quelques pays.
6.3
En ce qui concerne la détermination du tribunal compétent, certaines législations
prévoient des règles spécifiques pour les procès relatifs à des atteintes à une marque ou a un nom commercial. Dans d'autres pays, les règles générales du droit international privé doivent être appliquées pour déterminer le tribunal compétent.
II.
Questions aux groupes
7.1
Les groupes sont priés de répondre, conformément à leurs lois nationales ou régionales, aux questions suivantes, et d'illustrer leurs réponses d'exemples de jurisprudences, en particulier d'exemples relatifs aux noms de domaine.
7.2
Énoncé des questions:
Introduction
Les groupes sont invités à commenter les efforts susmentionnés pour:
éviter de problèmes légaux liés à des noms de domaine par l'adoption
de conditions d'enregistrement plus strictes (cf. 1, 12 ci-dessus);
résoudre de manière extrajudiciaire de tels problèmes (cf. 1. 13);
et à relater les efforts et les mesures actuellement entrepris dans leurs
propres pays ou régions, ainsi qu'à émettre leurs propres suggestions
sur des mesures comparables ou sur la solution des problèmes spécifiques des noms de domaine.
Droit des marques
Un nom de domaine peut-il constituer une marque valable, et si oui, à quelles conditions? Prière de développer les problèmes et particularités qui peuvent se poser à l'égard (cf. 2.1-2.4).
(C)
Dans quelle mesure les règles sur la nullité absolue des marques sont-elles
aussi applicables aux noms de domaine (cf. 2.5)?
L'utilisation antérieure d'un nom de domaine qui inclut une marque peut-elle
constituer un usage suffisant pour amener à qualifier de dépôt de mauvaise
foi le dépôt ultérieur de cette marque par un tiers (cf. 2.6 et 7)? Si oui, quels
sont les conditions d'un tel usage suffisant?
L'utilisation d'un nom de domaine comme adresse IP d'un serveur sur lequel
sont offerts des produits et/ou services pour lesquels le nom de domaine est
enregistré comme marque peut-elle être qualifiée d'usage assurant le maintien de la marque (cf. 2.8 et 9)?
Le caractère mondial d'Internet a-t-il pour effet de satisfaire automatiquement l'exigence selon laquelle l'usage assurant le maintien de la marque doit
23
se faire dans le territoire où celle-ci est protégée? Dans la négative, prière
de décrire les autres exigences à remplir (cf. 2.8).
Un nom de domaine Internet peut-il porter atteinte aux droits d'un tiers sur
une marque? Si oui, à quelles conditions? Prière de définir l'étendue de la
protection des marques en ce qui concerne les noms de domaine et de parler également, dans votre réponse, des marques notoires et de haute renommée (cf. 2.10 et 11).
Quelles mesures peuvent être entreprises par le titulaire d'un nom de domaine pour éviter que son utilisation du nom de domaine constitue la violation d'une marque dans des territoires où le titulaire du nom de domaine n'a
pas d'intérêts commerciaux? Si de telles mesures existent, élaborer le contenu d'une pareille limitation (cf. 2.12).
Quelle est la réponse à la question posée plus haut sous 2.13 en ce qui concerne l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine Internet pour des produits ou services quelconques, si ce nom de domaine est identique ou similaire à la marque d'un tiers, enregistrée pour des moyens de communication?
Droit des noms commerciaux
L'enregistrement et l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine Internet peuvent-ils
suffire à créer, et à maintenir, un droit de marque sur le nom de domaine de
deuxième niveau qu'il comprend? Vu le caractère mondial d'Internet, suffit-il
d'une utilisation du nom de domaine qui inclut le nom de la société du titulaire du nom de domaine? Dans la négative, quelles conditions supplémentaires doivent être remplies (cf. 3.2 et 3)?
Dans quelle mesure les règles sur la nullité absolue des noms commerciaux
sont-elles aussi applicables aux noms de domaine (cf. 3.4)?
(I)
Le caractère mondial d'Internet implique-t-elle que les critères normaux de
l'atteinte à un nom commercial s'appliquent à toute utilisation d'un nom de
domaine similaire ou identique? Ou doit-il y avoir une relation spécifique
(d'une certaine sorte) entre le pays ou la région de votre groupe et l'utilisation du nom de domaine (ou les offres qui sont faites sur le serveur dont le
nom de domaine est l'adresse, cf. 3.5)?
Quelles mesures peuvent être entreprises par le titulaire d'un nom dè domaine pour éviter que son utilisation du nom de domaine constitue la violation du nom commercial d'un tiers dans des territoires où le titulaire du nom
de domaine n'a pas d'intérêts commerciaux (significatifs)? Ici encore, l'utilisation d'une réserve serait-elle efficace? Si oui, élaborer le contenu d'une
telle réserve (cf. 3.6).
Concurrence déloyale
L'enregistrement et l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine identique ou similaire à
une marque et/ou à un nom commercial d'un tiers peuvent-ils être contestés
24
avec succès sur la base des règles générales sur la concurrence déloyale
ou la faute? Si oui, à quelles conditions? Si un élément de mauvaise foi est
requis, prière d'en définir la nature et de donner des exemples. Prière de
traiter des moyens légaux de faire face à la pratique dénommée 'captation
de noms de domaine" (cf. 4.1 et 2).
Sanctions
Quelles sanctions un tribunal peut-il ordonner contre le titulaire d'un nom de
domaine 'qui porte atteinte à la marque ou au nom commercial d'un tiers, ou
dont le comportement vis-à-vis de celui-ci est illicite sur un autre point?
Prière d'indiquer si le tribunal a le pouvoir d'ordonner directement le transfert
d'un tel nom de domaine, en l'enlevant à la partie auteur de l'atteinte pour
l'attribuer au détenteur de la marque/nom commercial (cf. 5.1 et 2).
Droit international privé
Quelles règles du droit international privé du pays ou de la région de votre
groupe sont utilisées pour déterminer le droit applicable à un litige concernant l'atteinte à une marque ou à un nom commercial par un nom de domaine Internet (cf. 6.1 et 2)?
Quelles règles de droit international privé s'appliquent afin de déterminer le
tribunal compétent pour traiter le litige précité (cf. 6.3)?
25
Frage Q 143
Internet Domain Namen, Marken und Handeisnamen
Einführung
1.0
Das Internet wurde vom US-amerikanischen Verteidigungsministerium in den frühen 70er Jahren geschaffen, um in Kriegen oder ähnlichen Situationen über ein
Kommunikationssystem für Verteidigungszwecke zu verfügen. Das Internet wurde
als spinnennetzartiges Netz organisiert, bei dem jeder Benützer über eine Vielzahl
möglicher Verbindungen erreicht werden konnte. Nach einigen Jahren wurde der
verteidigungsbezogene Teil des Internet vom zivilen abgetrennt. Der zivile Teil war
ursprünglich den Universitäten vorbehalten. In den 90er Jahren wurde das Internet
mehr und mehr zu einem kommerziellen Instrument, auf dem sich Gesellschaften
aus aller Welt vorstellen und Waren und Dienstleistungen anbieten konnten.
1.1
Das Internet ist ein globales Netz von zahlreichen selbständigen Netzen (ein "Netz
von Netzen"), durch das Millionen von Computern ("Server" genannt) zum Austausch von Informationen miteinander verbunden sind. Ein solcher Server kann alle
Arten von Informationen liefern, von vielen nichtkommerziellen Auskünften bis zum
Angebot von Waren und Dienstleistungen. Um zu einem bestimmten Server zu gelangen, ist es notwendig, die "Internet Protokoll-Adresse" (IP-Adresse) zu kennen.
Eine solche P-Adresse wird Domain-Name genannt. Jeder Server hat seinen eige-
nen, einmaligen Domain-Namen, durch den er identifiziert und erreicht werden
kann (vergleichbar mit einer natürlichen Person, die per Post durch ihre Postadres-
se erreicht werden kann). Ein Beispiel eines solchen Domain-Namens wäre
"shell.com".
1 .2
Es ist zu unterscheiden zwischen Domain-Namen auf der obersten Ebene (top
level), auf der zweiten Ebene und weiter unten liegenden Ebenen (second level,
bzw. sub-levels).
1.3
Der letzte Teil eines Domain-Namens (".com" im obigen Beispiel) bezieht sich auf
die top level domain. Es gibt zwei Arten von top level domains, nämlich nationale
und internationale.
1.4
Nationale top level domains (die auch ,,top level country domains" genannt werden)
bestehen aus einem Ländercode mit zwei Buchstaben (z.B. "Ca" für Kanada und
"zw" für Zimbabwe). Der Ländercode gibt an, in welchem Land der betreffende Server steht.
1 .5
Internationale top-level domains (auch echte top level domains genannt) haben
keinen Bezug zu einem bestimmten Land, sondern zu einer von (gegenwärtig) fünf
Kategorien: ".com" für kommerzielle Organisationen, ".org" für verschiedene, normalerweise nicht gewinnorientierte Organisationen, ".net" für NetzwerkI nfrastrukturgeräte und -organisationen, ".edu" für (gewisse) Schulen und Universi-
26
täten, und ".gov" für US-amerikanische Bundesämter (wie erwähnt, hat das Internet
seine Ursprünge in der US-amerikanischen Verwaltung).
1.6
Die second level domain eines Domain-Namens besteht in der Regel aus einer
Marke und/oder der Firma des Inhabers des Domain-Namens (z.B. Shell Oil ist Inhaber von shell.com). Ein Domain-Name kann (muss aber nicht notwendigerweise)
weitere sub-levels haben (z.B. "oil.shell-com"). Sub-level domains sind notwendig,
wenn der Inhaber des Domain-Namens (z.B. Shell Oil) mehr als einen Server am
Internet angeschlossen hat (hat z.B. Shell Oil zwei Internet Server, dann könnten
ihre jeweiligen IP-Adressen lauten: "oil.shell.com" und "chem.shell.com').
1.7
Domain-Namen mit einer internationalen top level domain werden den BenUtzern
von der privaten Gesellschaft Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), Hendon, Virginia, USA,
im Namen vom Internet Network Information Center (InterNIC) zugewiesen. InterNIC wird von der National Science Foundation (NSF), AT&T und dem erwähnten
NSI gemeinsam betrieben. Am 11. März 1997 hat InterNlC/NSI den millionsten aktiven Domain-Namen vergeben.
1.8
Domain-Namen mit einer nationalen top-level domain vergibt eine nationale Institution im betroffenen Land. Die Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (lANA), die bei
der Information Sciences Institute der University of Southern California betrieben
wird, bewilligt den Namen. So werden z.B. in den Niederlanden Domain-Namen mit
dem top-level domain "nI" von "Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland"
vergeben; diese ist von der Réseaux IP Européenne (RIPE), Verwalter für die Region Europa, ermächtigt, welche ihrerseits von der lANA ermächtigt wurde.
1 .9
Es ist von Bedeutung festzuhalten, dass die Befugnis der erwähnten Institutionen,
Domain-Namen zu vergeben (bzw. andere Institutionen dazu zu ermächtigen) nicht
auf einem Gesetz oder einem Staatsvertrag beruht. Es ist eine tatsächliche Befugnis, die sich aus der Notwendigkeit ergibt, im Internet ein einheitliches Adressystem
zu verwenden.
1.10
Das System der Domain-Namen weist zwei Besonderheiten auf, welche mit dem
weltweit verwendeten Konzept der Marken und Handelsnamen scheinbar unvereinbar sind; das führt zu einer noch immer zunehmenden Zahl von Streitigkeiten
zwischen den Besitzern von Domain-Namen und den Eigentümern der Marken und
Handelsnamen.
Zunächst muss jeder Domain-Name absolut einmalig sein (so kann z.B. der Name
'shell.com" nur einmal vorkommen), während Marken und Handelsnamen im allgemeinen durchaus mehrmals nebeneinander benützt werden können, etwa für
verschiedene Waren und Dienstleistungen oder in verschiedenen Gebieten. Von
mehreren Gesellschaften, die eine identische Marke oder einen Identischen Han-
delsnamen besitzen, kann jedoch nur eine die Marke oder den Handelsnamen
auch als Domain-Namen benützen.
Sodann gestattet das Zuweisungssystem für die Domain-Namen technisch die Registrierung von jedem Domain-Namen, der nicht vollständig identisch mit einem be-
reits registrierten ist; folglich verbietet es keineswegs die Zuweisung von (auch
27
verwirrend) ähnlichen Domain-Namen an Gesellschaften der gleichen Branche
(z.B. "shell.com" und "shel.com", die an Shell Oil, bzw. einem neuen Konkurrenten
zugeteilt werden). Dagegen verbietet es das Marken- und Firmenrecht u.a. unter
gewissen Voraussetzungen, täuschend ähnliche Marken oder Firmennamen zu
verwenden.
1.11
Die verschiedenen Institutionen, denen die Zuteilung von Domain-Namen obliegt,
halten sich bei Streitigkeiten zwischen den Inhabern von Domain-Namen Inhaber
und Inhabern gleicher oder ähnlicher Marken und/oder Firmennamen im allgemeinen zurück. Die Institutionen sehen sich als blosse Registrierungsinstanzen und
nicht als Gesetzesvollzieher.
1.12
Vor kurzem haben gewisse Institutionen begonnen, eine etwas aktivere Rolle zu
spielen. Mehrere Institutionen haben strengere Registrierungsvoraussetzungen geschaffen, um Streitigkeiten über Domain-Namen vorzubeugen oder diese rasch
beizulegen. Solche Voraussetzungen können z.B. den Nachweis verlangen, dass
die second level Domain des beantragten Domain-Namens dem Handelsnamen
oder der Marke entspricht, welche der Anmelder regelmässig verwendet. Jedoch
sind die meisten Verwalter von Domain-Namen (einschliesslich der lnterNIC/NSI)
weiterhin nicht willens, bei Streitigkeiten über Domain-Namen als Schiedsrichter zu
walten; sie ziehen es vor, den Ausgang eines gerichtlichen oder eines Schiedsverfahrens abzuwarten.
1.13
Auch wurden kürzlich eine Anzahl anderer Initiativen zur Lösung der sich zusehends häufenden Probleme bei der Zuteilung und Verwendung von Internet Domain-Namen lanciert. Der konkreteste Vorschlag war die Einrichtung des Internationalen ad hoc Komitees (IAHC) durch die Internet Society. Das Komitee hat 11
Mitglieder, darunter Vertreter der World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO),
International Trademark Association (INTA) und der International Telecommunicati-
ons Union (ITU). Am 4. Februar 1997 gab die IAHC einen Massnahmenkonzept
bekannt, das u.a. folgendes vorsieht: Die Schaffung internationaler Expertengremien, die Streitigkeiten über die Registrierung eines Domain-Namens schlichten sollen (administriert von der WIPO), die Einführung von sieben neuen top level Domains (zusätzlich zu den fünf bestehenden), und die Ernennung von bis zu dreissig
neuen Verwaltern von Domain-Namen.
1.14
Neben der Teilnahme an der erwähnten IAHC Ist die WIPO im Zusammenhang mit
Fragen der Domain-Namen auch selber aktiv geworden. Das internationale Büro
der WIPO hat ein Treffen von Konsulenten auf dem Gebiet der Marken und Internet-Domain-Namen einberufen, an dem mögliche Lösungen für die bestehenden
Probleme geprüft werden. Die Konsulentengruppe umfasst u.a. zuständige Regierungsvertreter für Marken und Handelsnamen, Vertreter privater Markenrechtler,
Vertreter der Industrie und einen Vertreter der ITU.
28
1.15 Vom 12.-14. Februar 1997 fand ein erstes Treffen der Konsulentengruppe am WIPO-Sitz in Genf statt. Im Lichte der Gespräche, die anlässlich dieses Konsulententreffens stattgefunden haben, fasst WIPO die folgenden Massnahmen ins Auge:
Die Ausarbeitung von Richtlinien für die Streitschlichtungsverfahren, die im
Schlussbericht der IAHC beschrieben sind und die vom WIPO Arbitration
and Mediation Center administriert werden, wozu auch Verfahren für administrative Schlichtungsstellen bei Einsprachen gegen Domain-Namen gehören;
Das Aufzeigen von Ansatzpunkten für eine internationale Harmonisierung
des Zuteilungsverfahrens für alle top level domains;
Die Einberufung eines Konsultativtreffens Ende Mai 1997, zu dem alle WIPO-Mitgliedstaaten sowie die interessierten zwischenstaatlichen (lGOs) und
nicht-staatlichen (NGO's) Organisationen eingeladen werden, um Probleme
der Marken und der Domain-Namen weiter zu besprechen.
1.16
Auch die Kommission der Europäischen Union und verschiedene NGO's wie INTA
befassen sich gegenwärtig mit dem Thema.
1.17
Diese Darstellung fasst den Stand Ende März 1997 zusammen. Weitere Entwicklungen dürften stattfinden, wenn Gruppenberichte vorliegen und ferner, wenn das
Thema am Kongress von Rio de Janeiro im Mai 1998 behandelt wird. Die Entwicklungen könnten bis dahin sehr wohl zu einem ganz anderen Bild geführt haben.
I.
Konflikte zwischen Domain-Namen, Marken und Handelsnamen
2.
Markenrecht
2.1
Ist ein Domain-Name eine Marke?
Es wird gemeinhin angenommen, dass Domain-Namen nicht lediglich als IPAdresse eines bestimmten Servers am Internet, sondern auch zur Kennzeichnung
von Waren und Dienstleistungen des Inhabers dienen.
2.2
Ein solcher Domain-Name könnte als Marke geschützt werden, wenn das anwend-
bare Markenrecht eine Kombination von Zahlen, Wörtern und/oder Buchstaben
(gewisse Handelsnamen bestehen nicht aus Wörtern, sondern aus Buchstaben,
z.B. IBM, mit dem Domain-Namen "ibm.com"), welche der Kennzeichnung von Waren oder Dienstleistungen einer Unternehmung dienen, als Marke zulässt. Die Voraussetzungen, unter denen der Domain-Name als Marke geschützt werden darf,
können von Land zu Land verschieden sein.
2.3
Im allgemeinen wird sich ein Domain-Name leichter als Marke schützen lassen,
wenn die darin enthaltene second level domain bereits verwendet wird oder die
Marke unabhängig von der Registrierung des Domain-Namens bereits eingetragen
ist.
2.4
In den meisten Ländern ist die Registrierung der Marke Voraussetzung für den
Markenschutz. Dieses Erfordernis wird nicht schon dadurch erfüllt, dass der Domain-Name bloss mit dem einschlägigen Verwalter der Domain-Namen registriert
29
wird. Eine separate Eintragung des Domain-Namens bei der zuständigen Markenbehörde ist notwendig.
2.5
Absolute Ungültigkeit
Die meisten Markenschutzgesetze sehen verschiedene Gründe für die absolute
Ungültigkeit einer Marke vor, die sich ganz oder teilweise auf die Ungültigkeitsgründe der Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft über den Schutz von Immaterialgüterrechten
(PVÜ) stützen. Im allgemeinen gelten diese Ungültigkeitsgründe (z.B. Verstoss gegen die guten Sitten, Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Publikumstäuschung) auch, wenn
um Markenschutz für Domain-Namen ersucht wird.
Priorität und Böswilligkeit
2.6
In vielen Ländern gilt für die Begründung von Markenrechten der Grundsatz "wer
zuerst kommt, mahlt zuerst". Im allgemeinen ist das Datum des Eintragungsgesuchs massgebend. In den meisten Ländern erfährt der Grundsatz jedoch eine
wichtige Ausnahme im Fall, dass das Gesuch böswillig gestellt wird, beispielsweise
weil die betreffende Marke bereits von einem anderen gebraucht wird und der Gesuchsteller um diesen Gebrauch wusste oder hätte wissen müssen. Die zeitlich frühere Verwendung eines Domain-Namens, der eine Marke mit einschliesst, welche
in der Folge von einem anderen eingetragen wird, kann u.U. Gebrauch darstellen,
so dass das spätere Gesuch des anderen böswillig ist. Es mag in den verschiedenen Ländern unterschiedliche Anforderungen an den Zeitpunkt geben, in dem der
Gesuchsteller von der Verwendung des gleichen oder ähnlichen Domain-Namens
auf dem Internet Kenntnis erlangen muss.
2.7
Die Registrierung eines Domain-Namens bei einem Verwalter von Domain-Namen
(wie Internet/NSI) schafft kein Prioritätsrecht im Sinne des Pariser Ubereinkommens oder des Madrider Ubereinkommens über die internationale Markeneintragung.
2.8
Aufrechterhaltung des Gebrauchs
In vielen Rechtsordnungen muss eine Marke regelmässig in üblicher Weise gebraucht werden, damit das Markenrecht aufrechterhalten wird. Unter bestimmten
Umständen, die von Land zu Land variieren können, kann die Verwendung des
Domain-Namens als IP-Adresse eines Servers, auf dem Waren und Dienstleistungen angeboten werden, für die der Domain-Name als Marke eingetragen ist, als
genügenden Gebrauch gelten. Der Gebrauch muss indessen im Staat stattfinden,
in dem das Markenrecht geschützt ist. Es kann argumentiert werden, dass diese
Voraussetzung bei der Verwendung der Marke als Domain-Name auf dem Internet
automatisch erfüllt ist, da der Server mit diesem Namen von jedem Land der Welt,
also auch dem Land, in dem die gleichlautende Marke geschützt ist, angegangen
werden kann. Es kann jedoch sein, dass zwischen dem Staat und der Verwendung
des Domain-Namens ein stärkerer Bezug verlangt wird, etwa durch den tatsächlichen Verkauf der auf dem Server angebotenen Ware oder Dienstleistung an im
betreffenden Land ansässige Abnehmer.
2.9
Wenn nicht der Domain-Name als solcher, sondern lediglich der second level Domain-Name als Marke eingetragen ist (z.B. nicht "shell.com", sondern nur "shell"),
30
kann die Verwendung des Domain-Namens "shell.com" trotzdem als Gebrauch der
darin enthaltenen Marke (oder mindestens als Beitrag dazu) gelten.
2.10
Verletzung durch einen Domain-Namen
Die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens auf dem Internet kann Rechte Dritter an
einer Marke verletzen, welche gleich oder ähnlich wie der Domain-Name oder der
second level Domain-Name lautet. Das wird insbesondere der Fall sein, wenn der
Domain-Name Waren oder Dienstleistungen unterscheiden soll, die den Waren
oder Dienstleistungen gleich oder ähnlich sind, für welche die Marke eingetragen
und gebraucht worden ist. Je nach den Umständen des einzelnen Falles und dem
anwendbaren Recht, mag jedoch ein weiterer Schutz vorhanden sein (der sich z.B.
auf nicht ähntiche Waren und Dienstleistungen erstreckt oder der vor der Verwendung als Domain-Namen schützt, mit dem nicht Waren oder Dienstleistungen unterschieden werden sollen.
2.11
Da Markenrechte territorial gebunden sind, muss die Verletzung solcher Rechte
(abgesehen vom besonderen Schutz der bekannten Marken) innerhalb des Staates
stattfinden, der die Rechte gewährt. Auch hier (vgl. Ziff. 2.8) kann argumentiert
werden, dass die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens wegen der Globalität des
Internet automatisch zu einer Verletzung einer gleichen oder ähnlichen Marke in
allen Ländern, in denen sie eingetragen ist, führt. Andererseits verlangen verschiedene Rechtsordnungen die Erfüllung weiterer Voraussetzungen für die Verletzung
eines Markenrechts durch die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens auf dem Internet. Eine solche Voraussetzung könnte im Nachweis bestehen, dass sich das Angebot der Waren und Dienstleistungen auf einem so benannten Server (unter anderem oder insbesondere) an Kunden im betreffenden Land richtet.
2.12
Gültigkeit einer Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärung
Dies führt zur Frage, welche Massnahmen der Inhaber eines Domain-Namens
treffen kann, um zu verhindern, dass die Verwendung seines Domain-Namens in
jenen Ländern ein Markenrecht verletzt, in denen er keine (nennenswerten) Geschäftsinteressen hat. Wäre die Abgabe einer Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärung
wirksam (etwa: "Die Waren, die auf diesem Server zum Verkauf angeboten werden,
können nicht gekauft werden von Personen, die in folgenden Ländern ansässig
sind: ...)?
Stellt die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens, der einer für Kommunikationsmittel eingetragenen Dienstleistungsmarke gleich oder ähnlich ist, eine Immaterialgüterrechtsverletzung dar?
2.13
Markenrechtliche Fragen stellen sich, wenn ein Domain-Name auf dem Internet
verwendet wird, der einer für ein Kommunikationsmittel eingetragenen Dienstleistungsmarke gleich oder ähnlich ist (z.B. Name einer Tageszeitung oder einer Zeitschrift wie "Le Monde" oder 'The Economist"). Das Internet ist selbstverständlich
ein Kommunikationsmittel. Deshalb könnte argumentiert werden, dass die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens wie "Le Monde" oder 'The Economist" zur Verkaufsförderung von irgendwelchen Waren oder Dienstleistungen eine Verletzung der
Dienstleistungsmarken "Le Monde" bzw. 'The Economist" darstellt, weil der Do-
31
main-Name verwendet wird, um dem Publikum auf dem Internet Kommunikationsdienste zu zugänglich zu machen.
Die Frage wird in Lehre und Rechtsprechung über den Domain-Namen kaum aufgeworfen; es wäre indes hilfreich, das Thema genauer zu studieren.
3.
Recht des Handeisnamens
Stellt ein Domain-Name einen Handelsnamen dar?
3.1
Gesellschaften möchten ihren Handelsnamen oft auch als second level DomainNamen verwenden (z.B. "shell.com").
3.2
Es stellt sich die Frage, ob die blosse Registrierung und Verwendung eines Domain-Namens auf dem Internet ausreicht, um das Handelsnamensrecht am darin enthaltenen second level Domain-Namen zu begründen (und beizubehalten), und unter welchen Bedingungen das der Fall wäre. Nach vielen Rechtsordnungen richtet
sich die Entscheidung danach, ob das "massgebliche Publikum" der Meinung ist,
dass es sich beim (second level) Domain-Namen um den Namen der Gesellschaft
handelt, welche die Waren oder Dienstleistungen anbiete. Es kann jedoch sein,
dass andere Kriterien zur Anwendung kommen.
3.3
Es ist eine Folge der Globalität des Internet, dass der Domain-Name, der den Handelsnamen seines Inhabers miteinschliesst, in allen Ländern der Welt (dem Publikum, das sich zum Server jener Gesellschaft Zugang verschaffen will) zur Verfügung steht. Wenn der Schutz eines Handelsnamens nach dem Recht eines Landes
eintritt, ohne dass der Name eingetragen werden müsste, kann das zur Folge haben, dass die Registrierung und Verwendung des Domain-Namens auf dem Internet möglicherweise genügt, um einen Handelsnamen in jenem Land rechtsgültig zu
begründen.
Absolute Ungültigkeit
3.4
Was in Ziff. 2.5 über Marken gesagt wurde, gilt in den meisten Rechtsordnungen
auch für Handelsnamen. Dies hat Auswirkungen bei täuschenden oder sittenwidrigen Domain-Namen.
Verletzung durch einen Domain-Namen
3.5
Bei der Frage, ob die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens auf dem Internet den
Handelsnamen eines Dritten verletzt, ist die Territorialität wiederum von grosser
Bedeutung. Impliziert die Globalität des Internet, dass ein Domain-Name das Recht
an einem gleichen oder ähnlichen Handelsnamen in jedem Land verletzt, in dem
ein solches Recht besteht? Oder muss ein irgendwie gearteter, spezifischer Bezug
zwischen dem Staat und der Verwendung des Domain-Namens bestehen (wenn
also etwa durch die Benützung einer bestimmten Sprache deutlich wird, dass die
Waren oder Dienstleistungen auch in jenem Staat angeboten werden)?
32
Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärung
3.6
Auch hier stellt sich die Frage, welche Massnahmen der Inhaber eines DomainNamens treffen kann, um zu verhindern, dass die Verwendung des DomainNamens einen Handelsnamen verletzt in Staaten, in denen er keine (nennens-werten) Geschäftsinteressen hat (z.B. durch eine Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärung).
Unlauterer Wettbewerb I Unerlaubte Handlung
4.1
In gewissen Fällen kann die Registrierung und Verwendung eines DomainNamens, der einer Marke oder einem Handelsnamen eines Dritten gleich oder ähnlich ist, gestützt auf das Recht des unlauteren Wettbewerbs oder der unerlaubten
Handlung abgewehrt werden.
4.2
Dies mag insbesondere dann möglich sein, wenn der Inhaber des Domain-Namens
bösgläubig ist, etwa wenn er verschiedene bekannte Marken oder Handelsnamen
systematisch als Domain-Namen registriert und versucht hat, die Registrierungen
den Inhabern der betreffenden Marken oder Handelsnamen zu verkaufen. Diese
Praxis wird "domain name grabbing" genannt.
Sanktionen
5.1
In Verfahren über Markenrechte, Rechte an Handelsnamen, betreffend unlauteren
Wettbewerb oder unerlaubte Handlung kann ein Gericht in der Regel einstweiligen
Rechtsschutz gewähren und Schadenersatz zusprechen. In einzelnen Ländern
kann das Gericht ferner anordnen, ein verletzender Domain-Name sei auf die verletzte Partei zu übertragen.
5.2
Einige Verwalter von Domain-Namen verwenden allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen, die ihnen das Recht einräumen, Massnahmen zu treffen (z.B. Sistierung, Annullierung oder Übertragung eines Domain-Namens), falls (z.B. durch gerichtliches
Urteil oder Schiedsspruch) nachgewiesen wird, dass Rechte Dritter verletzt sind.
Internationales Privatrecht
6.1
Wegen der Globalität des Internet haben Verfahren wegen Verletzungen durch
Domain-Namen häufig einen Bezug zum internationalen Privatrecht.
6.2
Viele Rechtsordnungen erklären das Recht des Staates für anwendbar, in dessen
Gebiet das subjektive Recht geschützt werden soll. So findet etwa auf einen Streit
über die Verletzung einer deutschen Marke durch den Domain-Namen eines Servers, der in Paris steht und einer französischen Gesellschaft gehört, deutsches
Markenrecht Anwendung. In einzelnen Ländern gelten andere Kollisionsregeln.
6.3
Verschiedene Staaten haben besondere Gerichtsstandsregeln für Verfahren über
die Verletzung von Marken oder Handelsnamen erlassen. In anderen Ländern bestimmt sich die Zuständigkeit nach allgemeinen international-privatrechtlichen
Grundsätzen.
33
II.
Fragen an die Gruppen
7.1
Die Gruppen werden gebeten, die folgenden Fragen gestützt auf ihr nationales
bzw. regionales Recht zu beantworten und ihre Antworten mit Beispielen aus der
Rechtsprechung zu illustrieren, insbesondere mit Beispielen aus dem Fallrecht zum
Domain-Namen.
7.2
Die Fragen lauten:
Einleitung
Die Gruppen werden gebeten, zu den folgenden, oben umrissenen Themen
Stellung zu nehmen:
Verhinderung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten über Domain-Namen durch den
Erlass strengerer Registrierungsvoraussetzungen (s. Ziff. 1.12);
Möglichkeiten der aussergerichtlichen Beilegung solcher Streitigkeiten
(s. Ziff. 1.13).
Ferner werden Sie gebeten, Bericht über die Bemühungen und konkreten Massnahmen zu erstatten, die bereits in Ihrem Land bzw. Re-
gion unternommen worden sind, und Vorschläge für vergleichbare
Massnahmen oder andere Lösungen der einschlägigen Fragen im
Zusammenhang mit Domain-Namen zu machen.
Markenrecht
Kann ein Domain-Name markenrechtlich geschützt werden und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Voraussetzungen? Erläutern Sie die Besonderheiten
und Probleme in diesem Zusammenhang (s. Ziff. 2.1 - 2.4).
Inwiefern gelten die Regeln über die absolute Ungültigkeit von Marken auch
für Domain-Namen (s. Ziff. 2.5)?
Kann der zeitlich frühere Gebrauch eines Domain-Namens, der eine Marke
enthält, Gebrauch darstellen, so dass die spätere Registrierung der Marke
durch einen anderen als bösgläubig zu qualifizieren wäre (s. Ziff. 2.6 - 2.7)?
Was sind bejahendenfalls die Voraussetzungen für einen solchen Gebrauch?
Gilt die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens als IP-Adresse eines Servers,
auf dem Waren und/oder Dienstleistungen angeboten werden, für die der
Domain-Name als Marke eingetragen ist, als Gebrauch dieser Marke (s. Ziff.
2.8-2.9)?
Wird die Voraussetzung, dass der Gebrauch der Marke im Staatsgebiet
stattfinden muss, durch die Globalität des Internet automatisch erfüllt? Wenn
dies nicht der Fall ist, beschreiben Sie bitte die Voraussetzungen, die dafür
erfüllt werden müssen (s. Ziff. 2.8).
34
Kann ein Domain-Name auf dem Internet die Markenrechte eines anderen
verletzen? Wenn ja, unter welchen Voraussetzungen? Erläutern Sie den
Umfang des Markenschutzes gegenüber Domain-Namen und behandeln Sie
bekannte und verbreitete Marken (s. Ziff. 2.10-2.11).
Welche Massnahmen kann der Inhaber eines Domain-Namens vorkehren,
um zu verhindern, dass er mit der Verwendung seines Domain-Namens in
Ländern ein Markenrecht verletzt, in denen er keine Geschäftsinteressen
hat? Äussern Sie sich zum Inhalt einer allfälligen Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärung (s. Ziff. 2.12).
Wie ist die in Ziff. 2.13 gestellte Frage über die Verwendung eines DomainNamens für Waren und Dienstleistungen zu beantworten, wenn dieser Domain-Name gleich oder ähnlich wie eine für Kommunikationsmittel eingetragene Dienstleistungsmarke eines anderen lautet?
Recht des Handeisnamens
Kann die Registrierung und Verwendung eines Domain-Namens auf dem
Internet genügen, um am darin enthaltenen second level Domain-Narnen einen Handelsnamen zu begründen und beizubehalten? Genügt es angesichts
der Globalität des Internet, den Domain-Namen, der den Handelsnamen des
Inhabers des Domain-Namens mit einschliesst, zu verwenden? Falls dies
nicht genügen sollte, welche weiteren Voraussetzungen müssen dann erfüllt
sein (s. Ziff. 3.2 - 3.3)?
Inwieweit finden die Regeln über die absolute Ungültigkeit von Handelsnamen auch auf Domain-Namen Anwendung (s. Ziff. 3.4)?
I)
Hat die Globalität des Internet zur Folge, dass die gewöhnlichen Kriterien der
Verletzung eines Handetsnamens auch auf Verwendungen eines gleichen
oder ähnlichen Domain-Namens Anwendung finden? Oder muss ein wie
auch immer gearteter spezifischer Bezug zwischen Ihrem Land bzw. Ihrer
Region und der Verwendung des Domain-Namens bestehen (oder der Angebote, die auf dem Server mit diesem Domain-Namen gemacht werden; s.
Ziff. 3.5)?
Welche Massnahmen muss der Inhaber eines Domain-Namens treffen, um
zu verhindern, dass er durch die Verwendung des Domain-Namens die Marke eines Dritten in Ländern verletzt, in denen er keine (nennenswerten) Geschäftsinteressen verfolgt? Und nochmals: Wäre eine Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärung wirksam? Welchen Inhalt müsste eine solche Erklärung bejahendenfalls aufweisen (s. Ziff. 3.6)?
Unlauterer Wettbewerb
Kann die Registrierung und Verwendung eines Domain-Namens, welcher
der Marke eines Dritten gleich ist, gestützt auf das Recht des unlauteren
Wettbewerbs oder der unerlaubten Handlung angefochten werden? Wenn ja,
unter welchen Voraussetzungen? Sollte Bösgläubigkeit verlangt sein, erläu35
tern Sie dies und führen Sie Beispiele an. Diskutieren Sie die rechtlichen
Möglichkeiten, um den Praktiken des "domain name grabbing" zu verhindern.
Sanktionen
Welche Sanktionen kann ein Gericht gegen den Inhaber eines DomainNamens aussprechen, der die Marken oder Handelsnamen eines anderen
verletzt oder sich sonstwie gegenüber anderen rechtswidrig verhält? Kann
das Gericht die Übertragung eines Domain-Namens von der verletzenden
Partei auf den Inhaber der Marke bzw. des Handelsnamens anordnen (s.
Ziff. 5.1 - 5.2)?
Internationales Privatrecht
Welche international-privatrechtlichen Regeln Ihres Landes bzw. Ihrer Region sind anwendbar, um das auf eine Streitigkeit über die Verletzung einer
Marke oder eines Handelsnamens durch eine Domain-Namen auf dem Internet anwendbare Recht zu bestimmen (s. Ziff. 6.1 - 6.2)?
Welche international-privatrechtlichen Regeln gelten zur Bestimmung des für
die Beurteilung solcher Streitigkeiten zuständigen Gerichts (s. Ziff. 6.3)?
36
Argentina
Argentine
Argentinien
Report Q 143
by the Argentine Group
internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
With regard to Domain name registration procedures the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been entrusted therewith. If stricter conditions are to be applied
perhaps a specific clearance procedure at the Trademark Office or the Registry of
Corporations should exist prior to such Registration. In any event it is to be stressed
that the main problems to be addressed are not so much at registration level but at
structural level of the Internet: it does not properly take into account the principle of
specialization and the origin of a name, which is also blurred since domain names
are given to nationals of any jurisdiction by most Registrars.
In connection with out-of-court procedures there are no measures being taken in
our country specially addressed at Internet problems nor do special panels appear
necessary in our jurisdiction.
Trademark Law
Under the Argentine system of registration domain names may be registered as
trademarks or servicemarks irrespective of whether in practice they are used as a
means to locate a company in Internet or function as trademarks. Of course the descriptive ".com" would not be considered a distinctive part of the trademark nor
would the country denominator ".ar".
The rules of absolute invalidity fully apply.
The mere registration of a domain name would not, in our opinion, be sufficient use
so that a closely similar or identical subsequent trademark application may be considered to have been effected in bad faith. However if the domain name is actively
used to promote business for its holder, such use plus the registration, may be sufficient to deem the third party filing in bad faith, if the field of business is similar or
identical.
Argentine courts have ruled that any advertible use of a trademark is sufficient to
maintain the validity thereof. Argentine Law also considers use as a tradename as
sufficient to maintain a Trademark registration in any class of goods or services. lt
is therefore possible that use of a trademark as a domain name of a web page
37
where products are being offered for sale could be sufficient to maintain a trademark. lt would probably not be sufficient if the web page merely advertises goods.
Some additional linkage to our jurisdiction would probably be required. For instance
specific distributors address or telephone in Argentina is mentioned, specific sales
originating in the site shown, or other information specially targeting consumers in
Argentina.
Use of a domain name may be considered to infringe rights of a locally registered
trademark but would have to include reasonably proven effects in our jurisdiction
such as actual sales in Argentina, or damages to the local trademark registrant. We
do not feel there is doubt that domain names, which act as identifiers, may conflict
with similar or identical trademarks. lt is more likely that damage to the locally registered mark can be construed if it is a well-known or famous mark.
In order to try to avoid infringement in countries where the domain name holder has
no commercial interest, two requirements would be helpful: a) that the origin of the
company selling the goods or offering the service is stated. To this end it would also
be helpful that domain names always include a country designator (i.e. ".ar" for Argentina); b) that the domain name holder states that it does not intend to do business in countries where the trademark has not been cleared and, specially, if it is
notified of the existence of a potential infringement, should also state that the
trademark or name belongs to somebody else in that conflicting jurisdiction.
One of the problems to be addressed with domain names is the lack of application
of the principle of specialization. In support of such principle the answer should be
that use on the Internet of a domain name for goods or services not related to
communications, does not constitute infringement of trademarks or servicemarks
registered for communications.
Tradename Law
The issue will only arise for names where use as domain name through Internet is
the only or main commercial activity in a given jurisdiction. If such sole commercial
activity is sufficiently important and connected to our jurisdiction it will probably result in having created a right to a tradename (acquired through use). lt is difficult to
foresee what standards courts will apply to rule on this question.
Rules of absolute invalidity fully apply.
I)
There should be a relation between the actual activity being conducted in the
Groups' territory and the Internet domain name which should therefore have specific links to this country and be used for similar activities to those being undertaken
by the local party.
m)
Same measures as described under h) would apply.
38
Unfair competition
Registration and use of a domain name which is identical or similar to another's
trademark or tradename would probably not successfully be attacked by the tradernark/tradename owner unless accompanied by other elements which may indicate
bad faith. Whilst "domain name grabbing" would probably qualify, other indicia
would include notoriousness of the existing trademark or tradename, actual form of
use of the domain name (type of activity, goods being offered, configuration, color
and aspect of the web-site).
Sanctions
Sanction would be equivalent to sanctions arising in ordinary infringement cases.
These would include order to cancel the domain name and damages if applicable. lt
is unlikely that transfer of the domain name directly to the trademark owner would
apply.
International Private Law
Argentine Law (Civil Code articles 10, 11 and 14) would apply to analyze infringement of a trademark also registered under Argentine Law.
General international private law rules would apply to determine the competent
court. An Argentine court would probably find itself competent to analyze the infringement of a locally registered trademark. This does not address the more difficult issue of enforcing a local ruling in a foreign jurisdiction.
Summary
Avoiding confusion is at the heart of the problem between domain names and trademarks.
Due to the global nature of Internet, lack of sufficient specialization as to kind of activity
and origin are the main issues with regards to Trademarks or tradenames. A solution to
this problem must be achieved through greater specialization in the so called top-level
domain indicators, as already a general worldwide trend of opinion appears to have noted.
lt could also be achieved, through obligatory use of disclaimers and finally through technology which could prevent a web-site to be viewed from certain jurisdictions where local
laws may be violated by such viewing. Enforcement problems should also be addressed,
probably through International Agreements.
In the opinion of this group, to apply Argentine law and jurisdiction there should be additional linkage between the domain name and the similar local trademark or trademark.
Similarly there should be additional linkage for a finding of bad faith in the registration of a
domain name similar to a local trademark or tradename.
Aside from the above, most trademark, tradename and unfair competition principles apply
to domain names in a fairly straightforward manner. Over time, regular courts and not
special panels, will set the specific factual parameters with which such principles are to be
applied to the new technology.
39
Résumé
Eviter de la confusion entre les noms du domaine et les marques c'est le coeur du problème. En ce qui concerne les marques ou les noms commerciaux, les principaux aspects
ce sont du nature global d'Internet et la manque de la spécialisation. Une solution à ce
problème, peut être obtenue par une profonde spécialisation des indicateurs du domaine
sur lesquels l'opinion mondiale a déjà remarqué; et, aussi peut être obtenue à travers de
l'obligation d'utiliser refus, et en fin à travers du technologie qui peut prévenir qu'une "website" peut être vis depuis quelque juridiction où la loi locale peut être violacée par ce regard. Ces problèmes doivent aussi être traités à travers des contrats internationaux.
Ce groupe considère que pour appliquer la loi Argentine et la juridiction du pays, c'est nécessaire qu'existe une liaison additionnelle entre le nom du domaine et la marque similaire
locale ou marque. En plus, une liaison additionnelle pour trouver mauvaise foi dans un
enregistrement d'un nom du domaine similaire à une marque locale ou un nom commercial.
D'un autre coté, presque toutes les marques, les noms commerciaux et les principes de
compétence déloyal appliquent aux noms du domaine d'une manière sévère. Avec du
temps, les cours et pas des panneaux spéciaux, établisserant des paramètres spécifiques, lesquels seront appliqués au nouveau technologie.
Zusammenfassung
Die Vermeidung von Konflikten ist eines der Kernprobleme zwischen Domain Namen und
Marken. Wegen der Globalität des Internet ist des Fehlen ausreichender Spezialisierungen in Bezug auf Aktivität und Herkunft des Domain Namens das Hauptproblem hinsichtlich von Marken und Handelsnamen. Eine Lösung dieses Problems muss durch eine grössere Spezialisierung der sogenannten top-level domains erreicht werden, was offensichtlich der bereits allgemeinen weltweiten Meinungstendenz entspricht. Die Lösung könnte
auch erreicht werden durch obligatorische Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärungen und letztlich durch eine Technologie, die vermeidet, dass eine web-site von einer lokalen Gerichtsbarkeit so betrachtet werden kann, dass lokale Gesetze durch des Erscheinungsbild der
web-site verletzt sein könnten. Durchführungsprobleme sollten ebenfalls geregelt werden,
am besten durch internationale Übereinkommen.
Nach Meinung der Gruppe sollte für die Anwendung des argentinischen Gesetzes und der
Gerichtsbarkeit eine weitere Verbindung zwischen Domain Name und ähnlicher lokaler
Marke oder Handeisname bestehen. In ähnlicher Weise sollte eine weitere Verbindung für
den Nachweis von Böswilligkeit bei der Registrierung eines Domain-Namens und der ähnlichen lokalen Marke oder Handelsnamen bestehen.
Neben den oben erwähnten Aspekten können die meisten Prinzipien für Marken, Handelsnamen und unlauteren Wettbewerb in einer ziemlich einfachen und direkten Art und
Weise angewandt werden. Im Laufe der Zeit werden die regulären Gerichte, und nicht
mehr spezielle Gremien, die tatsächlichen Parameter bestimmen, mit denen solche Prinzipien auf die neue Technologie anzuwenden sind.
40
Belgium
Belgique
Belgien
Rapport Q 143
au nom du Groupe belge
par B. DAUWE (Président), K. BORGERHOFF, D. CRASSAERTS, H. DUVIVIER, D.
GROSSMANN, D. MARLOYE, J. SURMONT, T. VAN INNIS
Noms de domaine Internet, marques et noms commerciaux
J.
Introduction
La position du groupe belge est qu'un nom de domaine qui est utilisé exclusivement
comme adresse IP ne peut pas être considéré comme une marque, ni comme un nom
commercial. Les questions reposent sur un point de départ erroné en raison d'une confusion entre les notions en question. La définition de la notion de "marque" est déterminée
au niveau mondial: voy. l'article 15 de l'Accord du 15 avril 1994 sur les aspects des droits
de propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce (TRIPS).
L'article 1 de la Loi Uniforme Benelux définit la marque de la même manière: "tous signes
servant à distinguer les produits d'une entreprise".
Par conséquent, une marque fonctionne comme un signal de reconnaissance vers le public, comme l'indication que le produit provient d'une entreprise déterminée. Tout signe
distinctif qui, de facto, ne remplit pas cette fonction, ne peut constituer une marque.
Il existe de nombreux signes qui certes, dans la vie des affaires, sont importants, mais qui
ne répondent pas à cette définition et ne peuvent dès lors être assimilés à une marque.
A cet égard, il est essentiel de prendre en considération la perception du public. Il ne sera
question d'usage d'une marque que lorsque le signe (par. ex. un nom commercial ou un
nom de domaine) est utilisé de telle sorte que le public percevra cet usage comme un
usage se rapportant à un ou plusieurs produits (ou services) commercialisés par une entreprise lesquels, par cet usage se distingueront des produits (ou services) des autres. (voy. Cour Benelux 23 décembre 1985, affaire Adidas, jur. 1985, p. 47; idem. 16
septembre 1991, Burberrys Il, Jur. 1991, p. 16; voy. en particulier en ce qui concerne le
nom commercial: Cour Benelux, 7 novembre 1988, Omnisport/Bauweraerts, Jur. 1988, p.
90).
Toutefois un nom de domaine n'est pas un signe distinctif destiné à distinguer des produits ou les services d'une entreprise. Il ne sert qu'à limiter des "domaines" (un espace
particulier ou un serveur déterminé), il n'est qu'un moyen pour atteindre un "home-page"
41
ou "website" déterminé (la fonction d'adresse), il n'est pas perçu par le public comme
étant un signe servant à distinguer des produits d'une entreprise (une jurisprudence récente aux Pays-Bas semble - de manière implicite - admettre le contraire mais le groupe
belge de l'AIPPI estime cette jurisprudence très critiquable: voy. Pres. Rb. Amsterdam, 20
septembre 1996, 1ER 1997, p. 227; Comp. 1997, p. 26; Pres. Arr. Rb. Amsterdam, 29 août
1996, Comp. 1997, p. 24).
Seulement dans les cas très exceptionnels où le nom du domaine sera également le signe qui est utilisé pour distinguer certains produits (par ex. des vêtements) ou certains
services (par ex. une organisation de voyages) d'une entreprise, le nom de domaine pourra constituer une marque.
Un nom commercial est une dénomination sous laquelle une entreprise commerciale est
connue, sous laquelle elle est exploitée par une personne physique ou morale.
De même que pour les marques, le groupe belge estime que, sauf exception, le public ne
percevra pas un nom de domaine - une simple "adresse" pour atteindre un home-page ou
website - comme étant une dénomination sous laquelle un commerce est exploité.
Il va de soi que cette opinion de principe déterminera les réponses aux diverses questions.
li.
Réponses
A.
Le droit des marques
(a)
Il est peu probable que l'on puisse éviter des problèmes juridiques liés à des noms
de domaine par une adoption de conditions d'enregistrement de noms de domaine
plus strictes. Quelque soient les conditions d'enregistrement, il existera toujours
des problèmes juridiques et des conflits.
Pour l'instant
il
n'existe aucune uniformité et chaque organisation nationale
d'enregistrement, de même que INTERNIC, a ses propres conditions.
Par ailleurs, il échet de constater que les diverses organisations d'enregistrement
ne sont pas reconnues légalement en n'ont souvent même pas de personnalité juridique. Cette situation pose des questions en ce qui concerne la capacité juridique
de ces organisations et a pour conséquence que ces organisations peuvent difficilement être impliquées dans une procédure et que leur responsabilité peut difficilement être mise en cause.
La sécurité juridique requiert que des conditions strictes ne puissent être imposées
que dans un cadre légal (reconnaissant légalement les organisations
d'enregistrement et leur attribuant des compétences déterminées).
Les conditions d'enregistrement devraient être uniformes sur le plan mondial. Une
réglementation excessive doit toutefois être évitée.
En Belgique, l'enregistrement des noms de domaine est pratiqué par le professeur
Verbaeten, Département Computerwetenschappen, K. U .L. Le règlement prévoit
42
notamment que le nom de domaine choisi doit être une bonne identification du de-
mandeur. Sont acceptables: la dénomination sociale (ou une abréviation), une
marque, un nom commercial. Des dénominations trop générales sont refusées. Les
demandes de noms de domaine basées sur une dénomination sociale, sont uniquement acceptées lorsqu'elles émanent d'entreprises établies en Belgique. Des
demandes basées sur une marque ne sont acceptées que lorsque la marque soit
également valable en Belgique. Aucune procédure de règlement de conflit n'est
prévue.
li échet de faire une distinction entre, d'une part, le cas exceptionnel dans lequel un
nom de domaine, en son ensemble, est utilisé pour distinguer les produits ou servi-
ces d'une entreprise et, d'autre part, la situation - normale - visée par les questions posées, dans laquelle un nom de domaine est utilisé exclusivement comme
adresse IP.
Pour les motifs exposés ci-dessus, le groupe belge estime qu'un nom de domaine
constituant uniquement une adresse IP ne peut pas être considérée comme une
marque et ne peut dès lors, a fortiori, constituer une marque valable.
L'usage d'un nom de domaine comme simple adresse P ne pourrait jamais constituer une marque dès lors que cet usage n'a pas pour but de distinguer les produits
ou les services d'une entreprise.
En revanche, si un nom de domaine, déposé comme marque, est également utili-
sé comme tel, ce nom de domaine peut constituer une marque valable. En
d'autres termes, si un nom de domaine considéré en son ensemble répond aux
conditions du droit des marques, il pourra être déposé comme marque, étant entendu qu'il devra également être utilisé comme marque, abstraction faite d'un simple usage comme adresse lP.
Dans les cas exceptionnels où un nom de domaine doit être considéré comme une
marque, il va de soi que les règles en matière de "nullité absolue" seront également
applicables. Dans l'hypothèse où un nom de domaine est déposé comme marque
et est utilisé comme tel, toutes les règles applicables aux marques devront être
respectées, sans aucune exception.
Jusqu'à présent, le Bureau Benelux des Marques accepte le dépôt d'un nom de
domaine comme marque pour autant que le nom du deuxième niveau (la partie
centrale du nom de domaine) ne soit pas purement descriptif ni déceptif, ni contraire à l'ordre public ou aux bonnes moeurs.
Le simple usage d'un nom de domaine comme adresse IP et la connaissance de
cet usage dans le chef d'un déposant ultérieur d'une marque identique ou ressemblante, n'est pas suffisant pour que le dépôt ultérieur soit entaché de mauvaise foi.
Ce seront les circonstances particulières à la cause et non le simple dépôt en soi,
qui détermineront si le dépôt peut être qualifié de mauvaise foi (par ex. l'existence
d'un nom commercial antérieur). Le cas échéant, une action en droit des marques
43
pourra être introduite sur base de l'article 4, 6 LUB et l'annulation de la marque
pourra être demandée.
Dès lors que le simple usage d'un nom de domaine comme adresse Internet ne
peut être qualifié comme un usage de marque, pareil usage n'est pas susceptible
de constituer un usage assurant le maintien de la marque.
Certes, l'indication d'une marque sur le site même (la promotion et/ou l'offre en
vente et/ou la vente de produits ou services sous la marque) qui, le cas échéant,
correspondra au nom de domaine du deuxième niveau, pourra être constitutif d'un
usage de marque.
Cette question appelle une réponse négative (voy. la réponse sous (e)). Le nom de
domaine devra en outre être utilisé, sur le site, comme marque pour certains produits ou services - ce qui sera exceptionnellement le cas -, et, par ailleurs, la condition d'un usage normal au Benelux requiert que l'usage ait pour objet de créer ou
de conserver un débouché pour les produits marqués et qu'il ne vise pas au seul
maintien du droit à la marque. (Cour Benelux, 27 janvier 1981, Turmac/Reynolds,
Jur. 80-81, p. 23).
La réponse est positive. L'article 13, A, 1, d de la Loi Uniforme Benelux prévoit que
le titulaire de la marque peut s'opposer à tout usage qui, dans la vie des affaires et
sans juste motif, serait fait d'une marque ou d'un signe ressemblant autrement que
pour distinguer des produits, lorsque l'usage de ce signe tirerait indûment profit du
caractère distinctif ou de la renommée de la marque ou leur porterait préjudice. Par.
ex. lorsqu'une marque est comprise dans un nom de domaine pour un website" sur
lequel du matériel pornographique est présenté.
L'article 13, A, 1, d de la LUB est sans distinction applicable à toutes les marques,
qu'elles soient ou non notoires ou de haute renommée.
Dans l'appréciation du dommage il sera tenu compte de toutes les circonstances
concrètes particulières à l'espèce (par ex. la ressemblance entre, d'une part, les
produits pour lesquels la marque est enregistrée et, d'autre part, les produits qui,
par hypothèse, sont offerts en vente dans le website sous une autre marque; la
confusion créee quant à l'origine de l'information fournie dans le websïte (en ce
sens: Pres. Rb. Amsterdam, 15 mai 1997, 1ER 1997, 156).
On peut se demander si en cas de simple "domain grabbing" - simple enregistrement d'un nom de domaine sans qu'il y ait un véritable usage comme nom de domaine - il peut être question d'une violation de l'article 13, A, 1, d de la LUB et plus
particulièrement si, en pareil cas, il y a un "usage dans la vie des affaires" au sens
de la LUB. A cet égard il échet de remarquer que la Cour de Justice Benelux retient
une définition relativement large de la notion d'usage dans la vie des affaires. Ainsi,
dans son arrêt du 29 juin 1982, la Cour a considéré qu'il y a usage dans la vie des
affaires lorsque "cet usage a lieu - dans un but autre qu'exclusivement scientifique -
dans le cadre d'une entreprise, d'une profession, ou de tout autre activité qui
n'est pas exercée dans le domaine privé et dont l'objet est de réaliser un
avantage économique" (C.J.B., aff. 81/5, 29 juin 1982, Rec., 1981-1982, p. 40).
44
Cet arrêt fût confirmé ultérieurement par l'arrêt "Tanderil" (C.J.B., aff. 82/2, 9 juillet
1984, C.J.B.-Jurisp., 1984, p. 1). II y donc en principe usage dans la vie des affaires dès que l'usage se situe dans le cadre d'une activité dont l'objet est de réaliser
un avantage économique, à la seule exclusion d'activités purement scientifiques.
En cas de prétendu «grabbing» les circonstances de faits devront être prises en
considération dans l'appréciation de l'existence d'un usage dans la vie des affaires
(par ex. le fait que le nom de domaine ait été enregistré aux États-Unis dans le
«com-level» ce qui, en soi, est déjà l'indication que le titulaire vise un usage à des
fins commerciales; le fait que le titulaire d'un nom de domaine ait enregistré
d'autres noms de domaine comprenant des marques ou dénominations commerciales de tiers et qu'il tente d'en monnayer la cession: il cherche ainsi manifestement à en tirer un avantage économique).
Le titulaire d'un nom de domaine doit entreprendre toutes les mesures possibles
pour éviter des conflits avec des marques. Ainsi, le titulaire d'un nom de domaine
pourrait refuser l'accès au "website" pour certains pays, ou il pourrait faire apparaître un message dans le website indiquant que celui-ci n'est pas destiné à certains
pays (à savoir les pays dans lesquels le titulaire du nom de domaine n'a pas
d'intérêts commerciaux).
Cette question appelle la même réponse que la question (g).
Le fait qu'il s'agisse d'une marque enregistrée pour des moyens ou services de
communication n'a pas d'incidence particulière.
B.
Droits des noms commerciaux
La question appelle les mêmes réponses que celles indiquées en droit des marques dès lors que le simple usage d'un nom de domaine comme adresse IP ne
constitue pas en soi un usage de nom commercial. L'enregistrement et l'utilisation
d'un nom de domaine ne peuvent dès lors pas suffire à créer et à maintenir un droit
de nom commercial sur le nom de domaine de deuxième niveau qu'il comprend. Ce
nom devrait être utilisé effectivement comme nom commercial (c'est à dire pour
soutenir les activités de l'entreprise), dans le home-page ou le website.
Il n'existe pas en Belgique de loi spécifique sur la protection du nom commercial; il
n'existe donc pas de règles de "nullité absolue".
On considère généralement que dans certains cas un droit au nom commercial ne
peut pas être acquis, notamment:
lorsque à défaut de pouvoir distinctif le nom n'est pas apte à servir comme
dénomination commerciale;
lorsque la dénomination serait contraire à l'ordre public ou à bonnes moeurs.
(I)
La question pose le problème de la violation de droits antérieurs sur un nom commercial par un nom de domaine.
45
Dans la mesure où un nom de domaine utilisé comme simple adresse Internet ne
peut pas être considéré comme un nom commercial, il n'y aura pas de conflits entre
deux noms commerciaux.
Un conflit entre un nom de domaine et un nom commercial antérieur devra être apprécié au regard du droit commun à savoir sur base de l'article 1382 du Code Civil
(l'obligation générale de prudence) lorsque le conflit oppose un commerçant à un
non-commerçant, et sur base de l'article 93 de la Loi du 14juillet1991 sur les Pratiques du Commerce et sur l'information et la protection du consommateur, en cas
de conflit entre vendeurs.
En application des dispositions légales précitées, la violation d'un droit sur un nom
commercial pourra être constatée:
lorsqu'il y a usage du nom de domaine dans le pays où le commerçant
(vendeur) est connu sous un nom commercial déterminé (étant entendu que
pareil usage peut être exclu par des mesures comme celles indiqué sous (h)
et,;
lorsque, selon les circonstances de la cause, la preuve d'un comportement
illicite ou d'un acte contraire aux usages honnête en matière commerciale
est apportée; cela sera par exemple le cas lorsque, sur base des circonstances de fait, il pourra être démontré que, par l'usage du nom de domaine, une
confusion est créée entre les identités des parties respectives et/ou entre
leurs activités respectives.
La question appelle la même réponse que celle formulée sous la question h.
C.
Concurrence déloyale
Le titulaire d'une marque ne doit pas avoir recours au droit commun de la responsabilité ni à la réglementation en matière de concurrence déloyale, dès lors qu'il
peut introduire une action sur base de l'article 13, A, 1, d de la Loi Uniforme Benelux (voy. Pres. Rb. Amsterdam, 15 mai 1997, 1ER 1997, p. 156).
En ce qui concerne le nom commercial, on peut se référer à la réponse sous la
question (I).
La mauvaise foi n'est pas requise.
En cas de "domain grabbing" (simple enregistrement d'un nom de domaine dans
lequel le nom du second niveau correspond à une marque ou un nom commercial
antérieur), le titulaire de la marque Benelux antérieure pourra avoir recours à
l'article 13, A, 1, d de la LUB (voy. supra question g) et le titulaire du nom commercial antérieur pourra introduire une action fondée sur le droit commun de la responsabilité ou une action fondée sur l'article 93 de la Loi sur les Pratiques du Commerce.
46
D.
Sanctions
(o)
Une interdiction d'usage du nom de domaine, sous astreinte, peut être ordonnée.
Des dommages et intérêts peuvent également être attribués.
Les règles nationales existantes ne prévoient pas de mesures comparables à un
"on hold status".
A titre de réparation en nature le tribunal peut ordonner que le nom de domaine soit
cédé au titulaire de la marque ou du nom commercial dont les droits ont été violés.
Enfin, la publication du jugement peut également être ordonnée.
E.
Droit international privé
La question posée requiert qu'il y ait un usage d'un nom de domaine dans le pays
(par hypothèse la Belgique) où une éventuelle violation d'un droit de marque ou
d'un droit sur un nom commercial antérieur, est perpétré.
S'il y a usage en Belgique et, partant, dans le Benelux, le titulaire d'une marque
Benelux pourra se prévaloir de la Loi Uniforme Benelux sur les marques.
En cas de conflit entre un nom commercial d'une entreprise et un nom de domaine d'une entreprise étrangère, utilisé en Belgique, le droit commun belge sera
applicable, l'acte illicite (l'usage du nom de domaine en Belgique) étant situé en
Belgique (lex loci delicti commissi). Ici également il conviendra de vérifier si l'usage
du nom de domaine litigieux n'a pas été exclu en Belgique par des mesures appropriées (voy. supra).
En cas de conflit, en Belgique, avec un droit de marque antérieure, l'article 37 de la
Loi Uniforme Benelux comprenant des dispositions impératives en matière de compétence, trouvera application (le tribunal du domicile du défendeur si celui-ci est
situé dans le Benelux ou, au choix, le tribunal du lieu où la violation de la marque
est commise; à défaut, le tribunal du domicile du demandeur ou le tribunal de
Bruxelles).
En cas de conflit entre un nom de domaine, utilisé en Belgique, par une entreprise
étrangère, et un nom commercial d'une entreprise belge, il échet de faire la distinction suivante:
si la partie contrevenante est une entreprise établie dans la communauté européenne le tribunal compétent est celui du lieu où le fait dommageable s'est
produit (art. 5,3 de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968); dans
la pratique, cela signifie que le tribunal du lieu où le conflit avec le nom
commercial peut être localisé, sera compétent;
dans les autres cas, le tribunal du domicile du demandeur sera compétent
(art. 638 du Code judiciaire), sauf dispositions contraires en vertu d'une convention bilatérale entre le pays du demandeur et le pays du défendeur.
47
Résumé
Le groupe belge estime que les questions reposent, à la base, sur une confusion
entre les notions de marque et de nom commercial, d'une part, et de nom de domaine, d'autre part. En effet, les questions relatives au droit des marques semblent
admettre comme point de départ qu'un nom de domaine constitue une marque au
sens du droit des marques. Or, il échet de souligner qu'une « marque » telle qu'elle
est définie au niveau mondial (art. 15 des Accord TRIPS), constitue un signe, propre à distinguer les produits ou les services d'une entreprise de ceux d'autres entreprises.
Un signe qui ne remplit pas la fonction d'indication qu'un produit ou service provient
d'une entreprise déterminée, ne peut pas constituer une marque.
Ce qui peut être considéré comme un signe servant à distinguer les produits ou
services d'une entreprise, dépend essentiellement de la perception du public.
Il y a usage d'une marque lorsque le signe (par ex. un nom commercial ou un nom
de domaine) est utilisé de telle sorte que le public percevra cet usage comme un
usage se rapportant à un ou plusieurs produits (ou services) commercialisés par
une entreprise, lesquels, par cet usage, se distingueront des produits (ou services)
des autres.
Toutefois, un nom de domaine n'est pas un signe distinctif destiné à distinguer des
produits ou des services d'une entreprise. Le groupe belge estime que, sauf les cas
exceptionnels où le nom de domaine est également utilisé pour distinguer certains
produits ou services d'une entreprise, et où, partant, le nom de domaine est perçu
comme une marque par le public, le nom de domaine ne sert qu'à limiter des
«domaines» et n'est qu'un moyen (une adresse) pour atteindre un home-page au
«website» déterminé.
Une jurisprudence récente aux Pays Bas semble admettre, du moins de manière
implicite, qu'un nom de domaine constitue un signe dans le sens du droit des marques mais le groupe belge de l'AIPPI ne peut y adhérer.
Le groupe belge estime qu'une même constatation s'impose en ce qui concerne le
nom commercial. Le nom commercial est une dénomination sous laquelle une en-
treprise commerciale est connue par le public, l'entreprise étant exploitée sous
cette dénomination. Il va de soi que, sauf exception, le public ne percevra pas un
nom de domaine - une adresse pour atteindre un home-page ou website - comme
une dénomination sous laquelle un commerce est exploité.
Ce point de vue du groupe belge détermine de manière essentielle les réponses à
la plupart des questions posées.
2.
Dans les cas exceptionnels où un nom de domaine déposé comme marque est
également utilisé comme tel, toutes les règles applicables aux marques devront
être respectées (notamment les règles en matière de «nullité absolue»).
48
Le simple usage d'un nom de domaine comme adresse IP et la connaissance de
cet usage dans le chef d'un déposant ultérieur d'une marque identique ou ressemblante, n'est pas suffisant pour que le dépôt ultérieur soit entaché de mauvaise foi.
Des circonstances particulières (par. ex. l'existence d'un nom commercial antérieur)
seront nécessaires.
Le simple usage d'un nom de domaine, comme adresse IP ne pouvant être considéré comme un usage de marque, pareil usage n'est pas susceptible d'assurer le
maintien de la marque. Le caractère mondial d'Internet est sans incidence à cet
égard.
Seulement lorsque le nom de domaine sera en outre utilisé, sur le site, comme
marque pour certains produits ou services - ce qui sera exceptionnellement le cas
- et à condition que cet usage ait pour objet de créer ou de conserver un débouché
pour les produits ou services, pareil usage sur Internet pourra être pris en considération pour apprécier le maintien de la marque.
Un nom de domaine peut porter atteinte aux droits d'un tiers sur une marque. Le
titulaire de la marque ne doit pas avoir recours au droit commun de la responsabilité, ni à la réglementation en matière de concurrence déloyale. L'article 13, A, 1, D
de la loi uniforme Benelux sur les marques offre la possibilité au titulaire de la marque - qu'elle soit ou non - notoire ou de haute renommée de s'opposer à pareil
usage, en ce compris la pratique de «domain grabbing». Le titulaire de la marque
devra apporter la preuve que l'usage tire indûment profit du caractère distinctif ou
de la renommée de la marque ou leur porte préjudice. La mauvaise foi n'est pas
requise.
Le titulaire d'un nom de domaine doit prendre toutes les mesures possibles pour
éviter des conflits avec des marques antérieures (refus d'accès au site pour certains pays ou message informant les tiers que le site n'est pas destiné à certains
pays).
L'usage d'un nom de domaine ne peut pas suffire à créer et à maintenir un droit de
nom commercial dès lors que le simple usage d'un nom de domaine comme
adresse IP ne constitue pas en soi un usage de nom commercial. Le nom de domaine devrait en outre être utilisé effectivement comme nom commercial dans le
home-page ou le website, c.à.d. pour soutenir les activités de l'entreprise sous
cette dénomination.
Un conflit entre un nom de domaine et un nom commercial antérieur, en ce compris
les cas de "domain grabbing", doit être apprécié au regard du droit commun de la
responsabilité (art. 1382 du Code Civil: l'obligation générale de prudence) lorsque
le conflit oppose un commerçant à un non commerçant et sur base de l'article 93
de la loi sur les Pratiques du Commerce et sur l'information et la protection du consommateur (concurrence déloyale) en cas de conflit entre vendeurs. La mauvaise
foi n'est pas requise.
49
Les sanctions peuvant être ordonnées par un tribunal contre le titulaire d'un nom de
domaine qui porte atteinte à la marque ou le nom commercial d'un tiers, comportent
l'interdiction d'usage du nom de domaine, un ordre de cession du nom de domaine,
au profit du tiers, le cas échéant des dommages et intérêts, et la publication du jugement.
Le droit applicable à un litige concernant l'atteinte à une marque ou à un nom
commercial par un nom de domaine, est le droit du territoire où le conflit existe: la
loi uniforme Benelux sur les marques et applicable en cas de conflit avec une marque Benelux et le droit commun belge est applicable en cas de conflit avec une dénomination commerciale, l'acte illicite (l'usage du nom de domaine en Belgique)
étant situé en Belgique (lex loci delicti commissi).
En matière de marque, le tribunal compétent est déterminé par l'article 37 de la loi
uniforme Benelux sur les marques.
En cas de conflit entre un nom de domaine utilisé en Belgique, par une entreprise
étrangère, et un nom commercial d'une entreprise belge, l'article 5, 3 de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 sera applicable lorsque la partie contrevenante est une entreprise établie dans la communauté européenne; dans les
autres cas le tribunal du domicile du demandeur sera compétent (art. 638 du Code
judiciaire) ou, le cas échéant, le tribunal compétent en vertu d'une convention bilatérale.
Summary
The Belgian group considers that the questions, fundamentally, rest on a confusion
between the notions trade mark on one side and trade name on the other. Indeed
the questions concerning trade mark law seem to acknowledge as a starting point
that a domain name constitutes a trade mark in trade mark law sense. However, it
should be underlined that a "trade mark" has been defined on a world level (Art. 15
of the TRIPS agreement) as any sign, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of another undertaking.
A sign which doesn't perform the function enabling the indication that a good or
service originates from a specific undertaking, cannot constitute a trade mark.
What can be considered as a sign capable of distinguishing goods or services essentially depends on the perception of the public.
There is trade mark use when the sign (e.g. a trade name or a domain name) is
used in such a way that the public will perceive the use as a use relating to one or
more goods (or services) commercialised by an undertaking, which as a consequence of this use will be distinguished from the goods or services of others.
However, a domain name is not a distinctive sign which is bound to distinguish
products or services of an undertaking. The Belgian group considers that, except
for the exceptional cases where the domain name is also used to distinguish certain
50
goods or services of an undertaking, and where, consequently the domain name is
perceived as a trade mark by the public, the domain name is only used to border
"domains" and only is a means (an address) to reach a homepage on the specified
"website".
Recent case law in the Netherlands seem to admit, at least implicitly, that a domain
name constitutes a sign in the trade mark law sense but the Belgian group of the
AIPPI cannot agree with this.
The Belgian group considers that the same observation has to be made with regard
to trade names. A trade name is a denomination under which a commercial undertaking is known to the public, the undertaking carrying out trade under that appellation. But for exceptions, it is obvious that the public won't perceive a domain name an address enabling access to a website or homepage - as a denomination under
which business is run.
This point of view of the Belgian group essentially determines the answers to most
of the submitted questions.
In the exceptional cases where a domain name registered as a mark is also used
as such, all rules applicable to trade marks will have to be observed (namely the
rules concerning "absolute invalidity).
The mere use of a domain name, as an IF address and the knowledge of this use
by the owner of a later deposit of a identical or similar mark, is not sufficient to affect the later deposit with bad faith. Special circumstances (e.g. the existence of a
prior trade name) will be required.
Since the mere use of a domain name as an IF address cannot be considered as
trade mark use, such use is not inclined to assure the preservation of the mark. The
world-wide nature of Internet doesn't affect this.
Only when the domain name will additionally be used, on the site, as a mark for
certain goods or services - which exceptionally will occur - and subject to the condition that latter use purports to create or to preserve an outlet for the goods or serv-
ices, such use on the Internet will be taken into consideration to appreciate the
preservation of the mark.
A domain name can infringe trade mark rights of third parties. A trade mark holder
doesn't have to rely on general tort law, nor on the unfair competition rules. Article
13,A,1,D of the uniform Benelux law on trade marks offers the possibility for the
holder of a trade mark - whether it is or not - notorious or well-known to oppose
such use, in which the practice of "domain grabbing" is included. The holder of the
mark will have to submit evidence that the use either takes unfair advantage of, either prejudices the distinctive character or repute of the mark. Bad faith is not required.
51
The holder of a domain name has to take all conceivable measures to avoid conflicts with prior marks (deny access to the site in certain countries or display a disclaimer informing third parties that the site is not intended for certain countries).
The use of a domain name is not sufficient to create and to preserve a right on a
trade name because the mere use of a domain name as an lP address doesn't
constitute a use as a trade name, as such. Further to that use, the domain name
should effectively be used as a trade name in the homepage or website, i.e. to support the activities of the undertaking under that denomination.
A conflict between a domain name and a prior trade name, including the case of
'domain grabbing", must be considered in the light of the general rule of tort law
(Art. 1382 of the Civil Code: general duty of care) when the conflict opposes a
trader to a non-trader and in the light of Article 93 of the Law on trade Practices and
Consumer Information and Protection (unfair competition) in case of conflict between traders. Bad faith is not required.
The remedies a court can order against the holder of a domain name which infringes the trade mark or the trade name of a third party comprise an order to restrict the use of the domain name, an assignment order with regard to the domain
name, to the advantage of the third party, or damages and the publication of the
judgement.
The law to be applied in case of litigation concerning the infringement of a trade
mark or a trade name by a domain name, is the law of the territory where the conflict takes place: the uniform Benelux law on trade marks is applicable in case of
conflict with a Belgian mark and Belgian common law will be applicable in case of
conflict with a trade name, the infringing act (the use of the domain name in Belgium) occurring in Belgium (lex loci delicti commissi).
As far as marks are concerned, the competent tribunal is determined by Article 37
of the uniform Benelux law on trade marks.
In case of conflict between a domain name used in Belgium by a foreign undertaking and a trade name of a Belgian undertaking, Article 5,3 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 will be applicable when the opposite party is an undertaking established in the European Community; in all other cases the court of the
domicile of the plaintiff will be competent (Art. 638 of the judicial Code) or another
competent court according to a possible bilateral agreement on international jurisdiction.
Zusammenfassung
Die belgische Gruppe ist der Meinung, dass die gestellten Fragen auf eine Verwechslung zwischen den Begriffen "Marke" und 'Handelsname" einerseits und dem
Begriff "Gebiet" andererseits zurückzuführen sind. Die Fragen zum Markenrecht
scheinen davon auszugehen, dass eine Gebietsbezeichnung eine Marke im Sinne
des Markenrechtes ist. Es muss jedoch darauf hingewiesen werden, dass eine
52
"Marke" gemäss der weltweiten Definition (Artikel 15 des TRIPS-Abkommens) ein
Zeichen darstellt, welches dazu dient, Waren und Dienstleistungen eines Unternehmens von denen eines anderen Unternehmens zu unterscheiden.
Ein Zeichen, das nicht ein Produkt oder eine Dienstleistung eines bestimmten Unternehmens kennzeichnet, darf nicht als Marke gelten.
Was als Zeichen zur Kennzeichnung der Produkte und Dienstleistungen eines Unternehmens gilt, hängt hauptsächlich von der Wahrnehmung der Öffentlichkeit ab.
Es handelt sich um eine Marke, wenn ein Zeichen (z.B. ein Handelsname oder die
Bezeichnung eines Gebiets) so angewandt wird, dass das Publikum die Marke mit
ein oder mehreren Produkten (oder Dienstleistungen), welche durch ein Unternehmen vertrieben (oder angeboten) werden, verbindet und diese Produkte
(oder Dienstleistungen) sich dadurch von den Produkten (oder Dienstleistungen)
anderer Unternehmen unterscheiden.
Die Bezeichnung eines Gebiets ist jedoch kein Zeichen, das Produkte oder Dienstleistungen eines Unternehmen kennzeichnen soll. Die belgische Gruppe ist der
Meinung, dass, ausser in Ausnahmefällen, bei denen der Name des Gebiets auch
zur Kennzeichnung von gewissen Produkten und Dienstleistungen eines Unternehmens dient und deswegen der Name des Gebiets von der Öffentlichkeit als
eine Marke empfunden wird, die einzige Funktion des Namens eines Gebiets ist,
die Gebiete zu begrenzen und nur und ein Mittel (eine Adresse) ist, um eine homepage in einem bestimmten "website" zu erreichen.
Ein jüngere Rechtsprechung der Niederlande scheint anzunehmen, zumindest indirekt, dass die Bezeichnung eines Gebiets ein Zeichen im Sinne des Markenrechts
ist. Die belgische Gruppe der AIPPI kann dem jedoch nicht zustimmen.
Die belgische Gruppe ist der Meinung, dass diese Feststellung auch für den Handelsnamen gilt. Ein Handelsname ist eine Bezeichnung, unter der das Publikum ein
Unternehmen kennt, während das Unternehmen unter dieser Bezeichnung geführt
wird. Es ist ausser Frage, dass, ausser in Ausnahmefällen, die Öffentlichkeit die
Bezeichnung eines Gebiets - eine Adresse, um eine home-page oder ein website
zu erreichen - nicht als Kennzeichnung, unter welcher ein Unternehmen betrieben
wird, wahrnehmen wird.
Dieser Standpunkt der belgischen Gruppe bestimmt im wesentlichen die Antworten
auf die meisten Fragen.
In Ausnahmefällen, in denen die Bezeichnung eines Gebiets als Marke eingetragen
worden ist und auch als solche benutzt wird, müssen alle Regeln, die auf Marken
anwendbaren sind, beachtet werden (u.a. die Regeln bezüglich der "absoluten
Nichtigkeit").
Der einfache Gebrauch der Bezeichnung eines Gebiets als IP-Adresse und die
Kenntnis dieses Gebrauchs durch einen späteren Antragsteller der Eintragung
einer gleichen oder ähnlichen Marke reicht nicht aus, um die spätere Eintragung
53
der Marke als wider Treu und Glauben zu erklären. Besondere Umstände, wie zum
Beispiel das Vorhandensein eines früheren Handelsnamens, sind dazu notwendig.
Da der einfache Gebrauch der Bezeichnung eines Gebiets als IP-Adresse nicht als
Gebrauch einer Marke angesehen werden kann, kann ein solcher Gebrauch nicht
die Aufrechterhaltung der Marke gewährleisten. Das weltliche Charakter des Internets spielt diesbezüglich keine Rolle.
Nur wenn die Bezeichnung eines Gebiets auf dem website zusätzlich als Marke für
bestimmte Produkte und Dienstleistungen benutzt wird - was nur ausnahmsweise
der Fall sein wird - und unter der Bedingung, dass dieser Gebrauch neue Absatzmärkte für Waren oder Dienstleistungen erschliessen oder erhalten soll, kann dieser Gebrauch auf dem Internet berücksichtigt werden, um die Aufrechterhaltung der
Marke zu bewerten.
Die Bezeichnung eines Gebiets kann Rechte Dritter an einer Marke verletzen. Der
Inhaber der Marke braucht sich nicht auf die zivilrechtliche Haftung oder unlauteren
Wettbewerb zu berufen. Artikel 13 A 1 D des Benelux-Markengesetzes ermöglicht
dem Inhaber einer Marke - ob bekannt oder nicht - sich gegen einen solchen Gebrauch, einschliesslich dem "domain grabbing" zu widersetzen. Der Inhaber der
Marke muss den Beweis erbringen, dass der Gebrauch unrechtmässig von dem
Kennzeichen oder dem Renommee der Marke profitiert. Der Beweis der Böswilligkeit ist nicht erforderlich.
Der Inhaber der Bezeichnung eines Gebiets muss alle möglichen Massnahmen
treffen, um Konflikte mit vorher bestehenden Marken zu vermeiden, z.B. Verweigerung des Zugangs zum website für gewisse Länder oder Benachrichtigung
Dritter, dass das website für gewisse Länder nicht bestimmt ist.
Der Gebrauch der Bezeichnung eines Gebiets ist nicht ausreichend, um das Recht
auf einen Handelsnamen zu begründen oder zu erhalten, weil der blosse Gebrauch
der Bezeichnung eines Gebiets als IP-Adresse an sich der Gebrauch eines Handelsnamens darstellt. Die Bezeichnung des Gebiets müsste darüber hinaus tatsächlich als Handelsname auf der home-page oder dem website erscheinen, d.h.
um die Tätigkeiten des Unternehmens unter dieser Benennung zu unterstützen.
Wenn es sich um einen Streitfall zwischen einem Kaufmann und einem nicht Kaufmann handelt, muss der Konflikt zwischen der Gebietsbezeichnung und einem vorherigen Handeisnamen, einschliesslich Fälle von "domain grabbing", anhand der
zivilrechtlichen Haftung (Artikel 1382 Zivilgesetzbuch: allgemeine Vorsichtspflicht)
gelöst werden. Ein Streitfall zwischen Kaufleuten wird anhand Artikel 93 des Gesetzes über die Handelsgewohnheiten und Verbraucherschutz und -information
(unlauterer Wettbewerb) gelöst. Der Beweis der Böswilligkeit ist nicht erforderlich.
Das Gericht kann folgende Massnahmen gegen den Inhaber der Bezeichnung
eines Gebiets, welche die Marke oder den Handelsnamen eines Dritten verletzt,
anordnen: Verbot des Gebrauchs der Bezeichnung des Gebiets, Aufforderung zur
Abtretung der Gebietsbezeichnung zugunsten des Dritten, ggf. Schadensersatz
und die Veröffentlichung des Urteils.
54
10.
Auf ein Verfahren über die Verletzung einer Marke oder eines Handeisnamens
durch eine Gebietsbezeichnung wird das Recht des Staates angewendet, in
welchem der Konflikt stattfindet: wenn die unerlaubte Handlung in Belgien stattfindet (Gebrauch der Gebietsbezeichnung in Belgien), ist das Benelux-Markengesetz
auf Konflikte mit einer Benelux-Marke und einem Handeisnamen und dem allgemeinen belgischen Recht anwendbar (lex bd delicti commissi).
In Markenangelegenheiten wird der zuständige Gerichtsstand gemäss Artikel 37
des Benelux-Markengesetzes bestimmt.
Bei einem Konflikt zwischen einer durch ein ausländisches Unternehmen in Belgien
benutzten Gebietsbezeichnung und dem Handelsnamen eines belgischen Unternehmens ist Artikel 5, 3 des EuGVÜ anwendbar, wenn die zuwiderhandeinde
Partei ein in der Europäischen Union ansässiges Unternehmen ist. In den anderen
Fällen ist
das Gericht des Wohnsitzes des Klägers zuständig (Artikel 638
das aufgrund eines bilateralen Abkommens
Gerichtsgesetzbuch) oder ggf.
zuständige Gericht.
55
Brazil
Brésil
Brasilien
Report Q 143
in the name of the Brazilian Group
by Gustavo LEONARDOS, Ricardo Vieira de MELLO,
Valdir ROCHA and José Antonio FARIA CORREA
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
We visualize no reason why the general rules on inherent registrability of a trademark should not apply to marks deriving from or consisting of domain names.
The filing of a trade mark may be held in bad faith on the following cases:
(j)
such trade mark reproduces or is confusingly similar with a domain name
which had become well-known as belonging to a third party, in connection
with goods or services which are identical, similar or related in Brazil or
(ii)
such trade mark reproduces or is confusingly similar with a domain name the
existence of which could not have been reasonably unknown to the applicant.
The legal basis for refusal would be article 6bs of the Paris Convention, both in its
provisions relating to protection of well-known marks and in its provisions relating to
usurpation of a mark knowingly belonging to the plaintiff. The current domestic legislation which Brazil instituted on May 15, 1997 provides a specific protection in
both situations. There is no case law defining the quantity of prior use required for a
plaintiff to qualify for such protection. The quantity will depend on the uniqueness of
the mark and the line of business in question.
The Brazilian group advocates the position that the offer of sale of goods or performance of services via INTERNET should suffice as proof of use, but there exists
no jurisprudence supporting or discarding this opinion.
The answer is negative, since, in fact, the mere existence of a domain name does
not provide sufficient evidence of use of a mark. Under Brazilian law use must be
effective, and this implies commercial acts actually performed in the Brazilian territory.
Based on the prevailing doctrine and jurisprudence, the Brazilian group takes the
view that the use of an Internet domain name may infringe on another party's right
to a trade mark. The question of infringement must be visualized in light of the spe-
56
cific nature of the goods and services for which the disputed mark and domain
name are intended, but the fact that the allegedly violated trademark rights are associated with a highly reputed mark dramatically affects the assessment of conflict,
since under Brazilian law highly reputed marks enjoy an enlarged protection.
(h)
In general the simple use of a third party's trade mark in publicity, even in the absence of effective sales or supply of services is viewed as an infringement in Brazil
and this understanding should basically apply to publicity via Internet.
The peculiar situation of sites under domain names that may represent a potential
infringement in Brazil, but generating no effective commercial activity in this country
and containing a specific disclaimer to this effect might however be covered by the
exception of section 132, IV of the new Brazilian industrial property law. That section permits the citation of a third party 's mark in a non commercial context. To
which extent the situation under analysis would enjoy the benefit of that statutory
provision is an open question, since the law is very recent and there is not yet any
jurisprudence addressing the correct interpretation of the notion of non commercial
context contemplated in it.
(j)
Not necessarily. The existence of a conflict between a domain name and a registered mark is contingent upon the actual possibility of confusion or association by
part of the consumer public.
Trade name law
Since the protection of a trade name derives from its registration before the registry
of commerce or before the civil registry of moral persons as well as from its use in
certain cases, t is possible to recognise the protection of a commercial name to
names which a company utilizes to identify itself through its home pages at INTERNET.
The leading question is whether or not the domain name constitutes a distinctive
name under which the company operates or is nothing but an address. This is a
question of evidence, since the interested party will have to prove that the name is
perceived by the marketplace as a trade name and not simply as an address. The
use of the home page may provide material evidence for this analysis.
If the domain name incorporates a commercial name, its use at INTERNET may be
regarded as sufficient to assure its legal protection. The fact that INTERNET is a
virtual space does not appear to affect the application of the rules governing the
protection of commercial names.
(I)
If the trade name protection is sought on the basis of use of the name as a domain
name, the same rules on novelty (conflict between identical or similar names) and
veracity (applicable to firm names) of commercial names in general will apply.
(m)
The protection of trade names is not absolute, but rather subject to the principles of
territoriality and confusion deriving from the respective use for identical or similar
activities. A simple disclaimer, on its turn, would not be effective, since the access
57
to internet sites is possible from any jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction of the territory to which the disclaimer is intended.
Unfair competition
The use of a domain name identical to or similar with a third party's trade name
may be challenged on the grounds of the domestic legislation on unfair competition
to the extent that it can be proved that such use does not perform the simple func-
tion of identifying an INTERNET site, but rather the function of identifying the
holder's business activities. lt should however be noted that this question has never
been tested in court.
Sanctions
A court may issue a preliminary or permanent order to stop use of a domain name
in violation of trade mark or trade name rights of a third party, as well as an award
of damages associated with the tort of which the defendant is charged.
Conflicts of law
The law of the country where protection against violation of the trade mark or trade
name rights is sought should apply automatically.
The Brazilian courts will have jurisdiction where the defendant party is domiciled in
Brazil or where the alleged violation occurs in this country.
58
Canada
Canada
Kanada
Report Q 143
in the name of the Canadian Group
by Jonathan C. COHEN
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Trade-mark Law
(a)
The Canadian Group has studied Question 143 and supplies the following
answers:
Question (b) Can a Domain Name be a suitable candidate for trade-mark protection, and
if so, under which conditions? Please elaborate on the specific problems or
peculiarities which may arise in that respect (cfr. 2.1-2.4)
Answer (b)
Under Canadian Trade-mark law, anything which looks like a trade-mark and
acts like a trade-mark, in other words meets the definition of a trade-mark as
set out in the Trade-marks Act, is a trade-mark. A Domain Name can be a
trade-mark if it meets the qualifications for a trade-mark, namely, it is used
within the meaning of use of a trade-mark in this country and if it is distinctive. While it is not strictly necessary to register a Domain Name separately
as a trade-mark in order to have trade-mark rights, it would clearly be desirable.
Question (c) To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trade-marks also apply
to Domain Names (cfr. 2.5)?
Answer (c)
The Canadian group is not certain about the import of the question but as the
question is phrased, the answer from a Canadian perspective must be that
there are no rules of absolute invalidity. However, the provisions of Section 9
of the Canadian Trade-marks Act constitutes an absolute bar to the adoption
as a "trade-mark or otherwise", without consent, of any mark or name which
breaches the provisions of Section 9, namely, official marks, marks suggesting a connection with living individuals, etc. or marks confusing therewith.
Question (d) Can the prior use of a Domain Name which includes a trade-mark constitute
sufficient use in order to qualify the subsequent filing by another party of said
trade-mark as a filing in bad faith (cfr. 2.6 and 7)? If so, what are the requirements for such sufficient use?
59
Answer (d)
The prior use of a Domain Name in Canada which includes a trade-mark can
constitute a bar to a subsequent trade-mark filing if the prior use of the Domain Name constitutes use of the Domain Name as a trade-mark. lt is not at
all clear that the use of a Domain Name, other than in the manner required to
establish trade-mark use, will be a barrier to a subsequent trade-mark filing.
Again, it is not entirely clear how much use or what will constitute use of a
Domain Name to result in trade-mark rights, but in general, one must assume that the same rules apply to a Domain Name as to any ordinary trademark, namely, that it must be used in association with goods in such a manner that at the time of the transfer of goods or the property in or possession
of the goods, notice of association between the trade-mark and the goods
comes to the attention of the purchaser in Canada. In the case of services,
there is deemed use if the services are advertised and available in Canada.
In addition, Canada's trade-mark law deems that export use constitutes
deemed use in Canada. A sale which takes place outside Canada of products which originate in Canada and which are marked with a trade-mark in
Canada will support a claim that the trade-mark is being used in Canada.
Question (e) Can the use of a Domain Name as an !P-address of a seiver on which products and/or seniices are offered for which the Domain Name is registered as
a trade-mark qualify as maintaining use of that trade-mark (cfr. 2.8 and 9)?
Answer (e) The answer for services is yes. All that is necessary to show use of a trademark in respect of services under Section 4(2) is its presence in advertising
of the services in Canada if the services are available to be performed in this
country. For goods the question is more complicated since, in order to be
trade-mark use in relation to goods, the trade-mark must appear on the
goods or their packaging, or be otherwise associated with the goods 'at the
time of the transfer of their title or their possession". lt is not an easy question, but many people speculate that since there must be a coincidence between transfer or possession, then the appearance of a trade-mark on the
Internet will constitute use for the many goods which are delivered subsequently to non-Internet facilities. We think the law will develop differently, but
it is certainly not clear at this time. Certainly, in respect of software, videos,
or music files, or in other digital based goods, use can be effected on the Internet, as the wares or goods are also delivered via the Internet. 8MB Cornpuscience Canada Ltd. y. Bramalea Ltd. (1989) 22 C.P.R. (3d) 561
(F.C.T.D.), and n the United States In Re Metriplex Inc. 23 U.S.P,Q. 2d 1315
(T.T.A.B. 1992). There has also been speculation that if the courts recognize
the validity of electronic contracts, it may be possible to transfer the title of
tangible goods on the basis of an electronic contract entered into and concluded on the Internet without any other documents, and if the trade-mark
appears on the electronic contract, that would constitute use in conjunction
with transfer of title.
Question (
f
Is the requirement that maintaining use must occur in the territoiy
the
trade-mark automatically met as a consequence of the global nature of the
60
Internet? If not, please describe which further requirements must be met (cfr.
2.8)?
Answer (f)
No, but, there is a good argument that in connection with maintaining use in
relation to services, proof that peopJe had accessed the website or other advertising information on the Internet in the territory, should result in sufficient
proof of use. With respect to goods, the question as above, is more difficult.
Question (g) Can an Internet Domain Name infringe another party's rights to a trademark? If so, under which conditions? Please elaborate on the scope of protection of trade-marks against Domain Names and deal in your answer also
with famous and well-known trade-marks (cfr. 2.10 and 11).
Answer (g)
In principle, an Internet Domain Name can infringe another party's rights to a
trade-mark. Where the Internet Domain Name is confusing with a registered
trade-mark, or other wise offends the provisions of the Canadian Trademarks Act, action may be taken against the owner and user of an Internet
Domain Name. The scope of protection for a trade-mark is theoretically no
different in relation to a Domain Name than in relation to any other trademark or trade name. The challenge is to enforce your right.
Question (h) What measures can be taken by the Domain Name holder in order to prevent that his use of the Domain Name constitutes infringement of a trademark in territories where the Domain Name holder has no commercial interests? Please elaborate on the contents of e.g. disclaimers (cfr. 2.12).
Answer (h)
There is nothing settled in the law about what measures a Domain Name
holder may take to prevent use of the Domain Name being infringement of a
trade-mark in a territory without commercial interest. Clearly, warning people
not to access the site from various countries, or refusing to ship goods to
such a country and making that disclaimer clear would appear on the face of
it to be a good practical solution. lt remains to be seen whether in this country that would be accepted as sufficient to avoid an action for infringement.
There is some case law which suggests that this may be a solution that will
be accepted by the courts in this country but it is not clear.
Question (I) What is the answer to the question raised hereinbe fore under 2.13 as to the
use of a Domain Name on Internet for whatever product or service if that
Domain Name is identical or similar to a third party's mark, which has been
registered for means of communication?
Answer (I)
The answer is that it is, in theory, irrelevant what the nature of the wares or
services are of the registered trade-mark. The issue is whether there is infringement. The questions raised in 2.13, or the facts raised in that section,
are what would be considered significant surrounding circumstances under
Canadian trade-mark law which might well lead to a conclusion of infringement, or based on there being the likelihood of confusion. When a mark is a
famous mark, it is entitled to a broader ambit of protection under Canadian
trade-mark law in line with the Paris Treaty. In particular, the Canadian
61
Trade-marks Act suggests that marks and/or trade names can be confusing
with one another, notwithstanding that the goods or services are of different
classes. In this particular example the fact that the marks are in the area of
communication seems less important than that the marks cited are well
known or famous marks and would be entitled to a broad ambit of protection.
Therefore, the first question is a difficult one to answer, namely, that if any
mark in a communication industry were adopted as a Domain Name, we do
not believe that would necessarily result in a finding of confusion, but where
any mark is adopted as a Domain Name and includes a trade-mark which is
well known, then notwithstanding that the goods or services are in different
classes, there may well be a strong case for confusion and infringement.
Tradename Law
Question (I) Can the registration and use of an Internet Domain Name be sufficient to
create, and maintain, a tradename right to the second-level Domain Name
included therein? Is, in view of the global nature of the Internet, any use of a
Domain Name which includes the company name of the Domain Name
holder sufficient? If not which additional requirements need to be fulfilled (cfr.
3.2 and 3)?
Answer (j)
No. Tradename law is provincial rather than federal in Canada. In order to
obtain a tradename and protect it, it must be registered as a tradename and
used as a tradename. Tradename protection is generally only provincial in
scope, although it can be federal. The law is not at all developed in this area,
and we are unaware of any case law which would allow us to answer the
second part of this question.
Question (k) To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trade names also apply
to Domain Names (cfr. 3.4)?
Answer (k)
There is no absolute invalidity of tradename doctrine, and therefore it does
not apply to Domain Names. (We have the same comments as in (c), supra.)
Question (I) Does the global nature of the Internet imply that the normal criteria of infringement of a tradename apply to any use of an identical or similar Domain
Name? Or must there be a specific relation (of some sort) between your
Group 's count,)' or region and the use of the Domain Name (or the offerings
which are made on the server of which the Domain Name is the address; cfr.
3.5)?
Answer (I)
There is no case law on this question, but using trade-mark law inferentially,
if there is no use of the Domain Name in a region of Canada in which there
are tradename rights, then there can be no infringement of rights. We believe
that if a Domain Name holder were to either arrange to block access to a site
from any territory where there were preceding tradename rights, or were to
indicate that purchases of services or goods were not being solicited from
such an area, nor were they would be accepted, that might well prevent an
action for infringement of the tradename holders rights in the territory. How-
62
ever, this is only a possible argument. Again, the question of whether there is
infringement or not in the Canadian group's view is secondary to the difficul-
ties of trying to enforce any such rights against a Domain Name holder in
good faith in another country.
Question (m) What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent
that his use of the domain name infringes another party's tradename in ferr!tories where the domain name holder has no (significant) commercial interests? Again: would the use of a disclaimer be effective? If so, please elaborate on the contents of such disclaimer (cfr. 3.6).
Answer (m) There is no clear answer at this time. Disclaimers seem a promising possibility (see I above).
Unfair competition
Question (n) Can the registration and use of a Domain Name which is identical or similar
to another party's trade-mark and/or tradename be successfully attacked on
the basis of general rules of unfair competition or tort? If so, under which
conditions? If an element of bad faith is required, please elaborate on the
nature thereof and provide examples. Please discuss the legal possibilities to
deal with the practice generally referred to as "Domain Name grabbing" (cfr.
4.1 and 2).
Answer (n)
Yes, the registration and use of a Domain Name can, in theory, be successfully attacked on the basis of unfair competition law or perhaps tort law. An
element of bad faith is not required although such information would obviously influence the court in favour of the applicant. The general rules involv-
ing infringement of trade-marks, or confusion, or deception under unfair
competition, would apply. However, when there is clearly "name grabbing"
there is a strong presumption, absent some clear colour of right in the hands
of the person doing the grabbing, that they have acted dishonourably and
that will very likely have a bearing on the outcome of any litigation. Again, the
question of enforcement may be problematic.
Sanctions
Question (o) Which sanctions can a court order against the holder of a Domain Name
which infringes the trade-mark or tradename rights of another party or which
is otherwise unlawful vis-à-vis said party? Please indicate whether the court
has the power to directly order the transfer of such Domain Name from the
in fringing party to the trade-markitradename owner (cfr. 5.1 and 2).
Answer (o)
In theory a Canadian court has broad powers to forbid a Domain Name
holder from using its Domain Name in Canada in such a way as to offend the
rights of a Canadian trade-mark or tradename holder. The provisions of Sec-
tions 7, 19, 20, 22, 53, 53.1 and 53.2 of the Canadian Trade Marks Act
should theoretically provide a broad range of relief. However, if the Domain
Name holder is not resident in Canada or otherwise accessible to the en-
63
forcement measures of the Canadian court, the judgement of that court may
be of little consequence or assistance.
International private law
Question (p) Which rules of the international private law of your Group s countly or region
apply in order to determine the applicable law in a dispute regarding the infringement of a trade-mark or tradename by an Internet Domain Name (cfr.
6.1 and2)?
Answer (p) We are unable to reply to this question as we are not certain that there is any
clear answer. We believe that the normal rules of "conflict of laws" would apply where there is clearly a conflict of laws. If there is use of a Domain Name
in Canada, then the Canadian courts will clearly have jurisdiction to hear an
action for infringement, but whether any judgement rendered in favour of a
plaintiff will have any affect on a defendant situated in another country which
does not attorn to the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts, is problematic. lt is
suggested that use of the country top level Domain Name .ca will likely be
most effective in providing a remedy in the Canadian courts.
Question (q) Which international private law rules apply in order to determine which court
is competent to deal with the above-mentioned dispute (cfr. 6.3)?
Answer (q)
There are no specific rules for trade-mark or tradename infringement proceedings where the parties are in different countries. As a general rule we
would suggest that where there is a Canadian right holder that wishes to
enforce its rights against a Domain Name holder, they would have to enforce
those rights in Canada based on activity by the Domain Name holder which
constitutes actionable behaviour under one or more of the Federal or Provincial statutes or common law or Québec civil law. While it is often possible to
arrange for service of Canadian court documents on non-resident foreigners,
the question of what can be done if they choose not to participate is a very
difficult one.
Summary
The issues surrounding Domain Names and trade-marks and their respective rights are at
an embryonic stage. The problems and the law associated with the commercialization of
the Internet are continuing to unfold around the world. In Canada, a number of the questions can already be answered, but many of the sub-questions in Q 143 require educated
guessing. Over the next 6 - 12 months it is expected that much will happen in relation to
the Internet and Domain Names and by the time the AIPPI meets in Rio next May, at least
some of the questions may have more certain answers than can be offered at this stage.
64
Résumé
Les questions concernant les noms de domaine et les marques de commerce et leurs
droits respectifs sont à un stade embryonnaire. Les problèmes et le droit associés à la
commercialisation sur l'Internet sont en évolution à travers le monde. Au Canada, on peut
déjà répondre à un certain nombre de questions mais plusieurs des sous-questions à la
Q. 143 nécessitent des suppositions éclairées. Au cours des 6 à 12 prochains mois, il y
aura plusieurs développements en ce qui concerne l'internet et les noms de domaine. Au
moment de la réunion du AIPPI à Rio en mai prochain, on peut espérer que certaines de
ces questions auront été abordées d'une façon plus précise qu'aujourd'hui.
Zusammenfassung
Die Fragen über Domain-Namen und Warenzeichen und deren jeweiligen Rechte sind
noch auf einer frühen Entwicklungsstufe. Die mit der Kommerzialisierung des Internets
zusammenhängenden Probleme und Gesetze entfalten sich weiterhin überall in der Welt.
In Kanada können schon einige Fragen beantwortet werden, aber viele der Nebenfragen
in Q 143 bedürfen einer auf gewisse Sachkenntnisse gestützte Vermutung. Es Ist zu erwarten, dass während der nächsten 6 bis 12 Monate sich viel ergeben wird bezüglich des
Internets und Domain-Namens und dass bis zur AIPPI-Tagung in Rio im nächsten Mai
spezifischere Antworten auf wenigstens einige der Fragen zur Verfügung stehen werden
als zu diesem Zeitpunkt.
65
China
China
China
Report Q 143
in the name of the Chinese Group
by Zhang BAOGUO
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Abstract:
China experienced the same situation as the world as Internet develops very rapidly in
recent years. The conflicts between domain name registration and exist trademarks/trade
names were recognized to the public as hundreds of "trademark domain names", which
are identical to registered famous trademarks of Chinese enterprises, are grabbed under
the generic registration domain of ".com" in late 1996. Many enterprises began to take
serious attitude to their marks in "cyberspace". A specific office controlling the Internet
domain name administration was established under the State Council, and the rules called
"China Internet Domain Name Registration Administration Provisional Regulations" for
domain names registration under ".cn' were formulated and put into implementation in
June 1997.
Comments:
(a)
comments on the endeavours to "prevent legal domain name problems by adoption
of stricter registration conditions'
Actually, since the Chinese public became aware of the "Internet domain names"
through the exposure of grabbing harassment, China was trying to execute very
strict regulations on registration of domain names under".cn". In December 1996, it
was discovered that most of the domain names under ".com" which were identical
to Chinese famous/well-known trademarks and company names (abbreviations)
were registered by some Hong Kong and U.S. companies. With widespread reports and effective symposiums organized by Chuanglian Co. and CCPIT Patent
and Trademark Office, Chinese enterprises came to notice the protection of trademarks and trade names in Internet. To enforce the registration administration and
prevent grabbing activities under the ".cn", Academia Sinica, the designated National domain name administration agency in charge of the registration of domain
names under ".cn", declared that only trademark and formal company names (and
abbreviations) can be registered as domain names. During several months, the
registration applications were proceeded with accompanying the certified copies of
trademark registration certificates or company registration certificates. By the end of
May 1997, all together 2,384 third level domain names were registered under ".cn",
66
in which 1,156 names were under the ".com.cn". The average registration rate is
about ten new names per day.
However, the endeavours of strict control of registration turns out to be not efficient
to handle over the growing applications. First of all, the applications could only be
proceeded when all printing materials arrive at the office. Moreover, the obligation
of presenting trademark/trade name certificate or company registration certificate to
apply for a domain name extremely restricted the variety, free inclinations and then
the number of domain names registration. In June 1997, the Information Leading
Team (Office) of the State Council assigned the China Internet Network Information
Center (CNNIC) to be established. 'China Internet Domain Name Registration Administration Provisional Regulations" were formulated and put into implementation
at the same time. The "Regulations" does not restrict the domain names to be identical to trademarks/trade names, or company names, but requires that the applicant
must be a formal company and provide with the registrant (CNNIC) their printing
documents with the certified copies of company registration certificates. Meanwhile,
the on-line registration service was put into use, where domain names can be registered on-line at first, and supporting documents to be delivered to the CNNIC
within one month.
In order to prevent the legal domain name problems, only adoption of stricter registration conditions is not effective. The conflicts actually arises from the fundamental
difference in the trademark/trade name system and domain name system: the same
name can be registered as a trademark by different entities, but the Internet name
under certain domain can be only used and registered to one entity. This conflicts
can not be resolved unless: 1/ make the Internet domain name registration system
corresponding with the current trademark/trade name registration system; or 2/
make the trademark/trade name registration system corresponding with the current
Internet domain name system; or 3/the two sides merge into one united registration
law, new from what they were.
Because of the global characteristics of Internet, if the applicant intends to be totally
"innocent", the registration of a domain name need to be distinctive to every registered trademarks/tradenames in every territories. In some particular cases, like the
concern of generic domain ".com", the registration interests are equal to every entity in the world. Stricter registration conditions can restrict some of the so-called
"grabbing" activities, but sacrifice some efficiency of services. Only stricter administration can not solve the whole problem. Further linkage must be established between domain name and trademark/tradename registration system.
Comments on the endeavours to "solve such problems outside the courts":
The IAHC worked out some valuable measures, including:
the international panels of experts under WIPO as arbiter of domain name disputes
and challenges;
the policy of voluntary 60 day pre-assignment waiting period and permanent identification of those applicants who chose to utilize the 60 day period.
67
The first progress makes the domain name disputes settlement to be an international concern (not what InterNIC dispute policy designated as the US Federal or State Court who
has the authorities of concluding the domain name disputes), and to be much more easier
to access.
The second progress makes a good choice for those domain name holders who want to
avoid possible conflicts on the registration. But it undoubtedly increases huge work for
trademark holders to be watchful all the time. If the same measures are implemented in
many countries some time later, the concerned trademark holders will have to be watchful
in all these territories. Otherwise, they might lose their right to argue forever.
The seven new assigned generic top-level domains do not solve the conflicts herein concerned. They are just the new space to carry out the new regulations by IAHC. Actually if
the conflicts can not be solved basically, more registration domains available means more
conflicts, and more labors.
The appointment of up to 30 new domain name registrars is very welcomed to all the concerned parties. This is the important step forward to upgrade the administration of Internet
to be international. Only with the cooperation from all the territories could the conflicts on
domain name disputes be solved.
As for the questions from (b) to (m), no answers can be given by the Chinese group, because these questions are just being studied by the Trademark Authority of P.R.C. As for
the questions from (n) to (q), such situation as described in these questions has not been
experienced in China.
68
Denmark
Danema rk
Dänemark
Report Q 143
in the name of the Danish Group
by Claus HYLLINGE
Internet domain names, trademarks and tradenames
Introduction
A domain name is basically an address to which you can be connected via the internet. In principle a domain name does not differ from a telephone number.
The crucial point is in the use of the domain name, namely whether the use is a private use or a use in the course of business.
Legal issues relating to domain names are thus primarily concerned with cases of
use of a domain name in the course of business.
Due to the nature of the internet it might be difficult to introduce stricter registration
conditions.
Denmark is participating in the international work in WIPO and the initiatives are
supported.
Trademark law
According to Danish practice a domain name is registrable as a trademark if it fulfils
the requirements provided by the Danish Trademarks Act, eg with regard to inherent registrability etc.
The same rules apply to domain names.
According to the rules provided by Section 3 of the Danish Trademarks Act a
trademark right may be established by commencement of use of the trademark in
Denmark for the goods or services for which the trademark has commenced to be
used and for which it is continuously used. The use of a domain name may in certain circumstances qualify as such use.
To what extent the use requirement is fulfilled will depend on the goods/services involved. A minimum requirement is that the use shall have been in connection with
the goods/services and that the goods/services shall have been obtainable in Den-
69
mark. For instance if the use is in connection with the sale of cars it must have
been possible to acquire the cars in Denmark.
The use requirement has only recently been introduced in Denmark and no practice
has been established as yet.
However if a domain name has been genuinely used according to the rules provided by Section 25 of the Danish Trademarks Act, eg that it has actually been
possible to acquire goods/services through the IP-address it may in certain circumstances qualify as genuine use.
The use of the domain name must actually have taken place in Denmark, in the
sense that it must have been possible to acquire the goods/services in Denmark,
cfr. (e).
The registration and use of a domain name is not an infringement of a Danish
trademark per se.
A domain name registration does not as such imply any rights apart from the right
to the name as an address on the internet.
The use of a domain name may in certain circumstances be considered an act of
infringement of a prior right to a trademark.
Any legal issues will be settled on the basis of the rules provided by the Danish
Trademarks Act and the Danish Marketing Practices Act.
In Section 5 of the Danish Marketing Practices Act it is said that 'No person carrying on a trade or business shall make use of any trademark to which he is not legally entitled or make use of his own distinctive business marks in a manner likely
to cause such marks to be confused with those of other traders".
The use of a domain name may be considered an infringing use in the manner described in Section 5 of the Danish Marketing Practices Act.
The case will be judged by the court in the same way as other infringement cases
and this also applies to well-known marks.
A Danish court decision has confirmed the above as it was held that the use of a
domain name for services which were of the same kind as those offered by a third
party under an identical name was an infringement of the trademark right.
As mentioned under (g) a domain name is simply an address on the internet and
the use hereof in the form of a trademark may constitute an infringement of a prior
trademark right.
If a domain name holder does not offer goods/services for sale that can be acquired
in Denmark there can hardly be an infringement of a Danish trademark right. lt is
70
not unusual that when a consumer orders goods from a specific internet address
he/she is informed that these cannot be delivered in Denmark.
(i)
This question can hardly be answered. The answer will depend on all the circumstances of the specific use of the domain name compared to the actual use of the
prior mark which covers communication.
Tradename law
A tradename is established in Denmark either by registration or by commencement of use
of the tradename.
In principle the same criteria applies as regards registrability etc.
(i)
i)
According to Danish law the use of a domain name can hardly establish a
tradename right in Denmark, but possibly a trademark right as mentioned
above.
ii)
In Denmark it is often not possible to distinguish between a trademark right
and a tradename right, as both can be distinctive marks. In case the tradename is used as such it may obtain protection according to the rules provided by the Trademarks Act or the Danish Marketing Practices Act.
(k)
Cfr. W.
(I)
As elaborated on under (g) infringement can hardly be established unless actual
competition on the Danish market can be proved. An establishment of infringement
will not depend on any special relations or the like, but may in certain circumstances be part of the judgement.
Cfr. (h).
Unfair competition
The use of a domain name may in certain circumstances constitute an infringement
of a prior trademark or tradename according to the rules provided by the Danish
Marketing Practices Act. However infringement can be established only in case of
actual use as described above.
Domain name grabbing is known in Denmark, but so far there has been no court
cases.
The legal possibilities are somewhat uncertain, but basis may be found in the Danish Marketing Practices Act, Sections 1 and 5. Again it may hardly be possible to be
successful in a legal action unless the domain name is in fact used in the course of
business. If this be the case the usual rules with regard to confusing similarity will
apply.
The mere fact that a domain name is registered as an address with no intention to
carry on business will not be an infringement of trademark or tradename rights.
71
Sanctions
A Danish court may rule that a domain name which infringes another party's trademark or tradename be cancelled. In special cases the court may rule that the domain name be assigned to the offended party. This could be the case if an agent or
an importer has registered the domain name.
International private law
In matters of infringement of trademarks and tradenames only Danish law is applicable.
None. According to the Danish rules and the court of ist instance the Commercial
and Maritime Court in Copenhagen applies.
Summary
Domain names are in principle an address, but the use in the course of business has
raised certain problems, especially with regard to trademarks and other distinctive signs
used in the course of business.
As far as Denmark is concerned the problems arise in case of use of a domain name in
the course of business in Denmark or the domain name may open a possibility of acquiring goods/services in Denmark.
In such cases a domain name may be considered a distinctive business sign and the rules
provided by the Danish Trademarks Act and the Danish Marketing Practices Act may apply.
72
Egypt
Egypte
Aegypten
Question Q 143
in the name of the Egyptian Group
by Samir HAMZA and M. Hossam LOUTFI
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
Egypt has no law or system developed to protect domain names or has set any
conditions to register domain names. Hence, there is no official or private registrar.
The government authorities prefer to wait for the outcome of comparative law jurisdictions on the issue.
Trademark Law
A domain name may be a suitable candidate for trademark protection, provided the
conditions of the protection of a trademark are met.
Because there is no separate registration system for domain names in Egypt we
may protect domain names by invoking unfair competition rules.
Since we do not have a system of registration of domain names, therefore, there
are no rules to apply the absolute invalidity of trademarks to domain names.
The prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark constitutes sufficient
use to qualify the subsequent filing by another party of said trademark as filing in
bad faith.
The requirement for sufficient use is subject to the discretionary power of the
Judge.
A priori the use of a domain name as an P address of a server on which products
or services are offered for which the domain name is registered as a trademark
does not qualify as maintaining use of that trademark. (Commercial use of a trademark is required).
Unless a new concept of global use is adopted as a substitute for territorial use, the
use of the trademark in the territory must be maintained (i.e. it is not sufficient to
use same on the Internet to satisfy the requirement of territorial use).
73
g)
Yes an Internet domain name can infringe another partys right to a trademark.
All conditions required for an infringement of a trademark are applicable.
lt should be noted that:
Well known and famous trademarks are not automatically protected in Egypt
under the present law on trademark dated 1939.
Any dilution of a registered trademark is considered a mere violation of the
trademark in question.
h)
Significant commercial interest in a territory is an essential condition for taking any
measures in case of an infringement.
I)
The crucial issue is whether such use creates confusion to the public regarding the
products and/ or services.
Tradename Law
The use of an internet domain name may be sufficient to create and maintain a
tradename right to the second level of domain name included therein.
Any use of a domain name which includes the company of the domain name holder
may be sufficient in this regard. The practice and practical problems may generate
specific requirement.
All rules of absolute invalidity of tradenames may apply to domain names.
I)
Unless a new concept of global use is adopted there must be a specific relation
between the country or region and the use of the domain name.
No measures can be taken by the domain name holder in this regard unless signifi-
cant commercial interest is proven. The use of a disclaimer in this case has not
been tested in courts to date. We prefer to give our opinion after a judgment is issued in this regard.
Unfair Competition
Unfair competition is based on tort liability under Egyptian law. The use of a domain
name in this regard may constitute a default subject to civil compensation.
The normal conditions under tort liability are:
I)
ii)
iii)
fault
damage
causality
74
Bad faith is not required as a condition for a fault which may be based on negligence and the like nature.
Domain name "grabbing" is considered in and of itself a default with bad faith entitling the injured party to higher level of compensation.
Sanctions
The sanctions that a court may order against the holder of a domain name which
infringes the trademark or tradename rights of another party or which is otherwise
unlawful vis-à-vis said party are compensations. This compensation may be indemnities and prevention of the infringer from the use of the domain name in question
which means giving the sole power to the holder of a tradename and/or trademark
to use the said domain name.
International Private Law
According to rules of the international private law adopted in Egypt the law of the
country in which the act that gave rise to the obligation will apply (Lex Loci delicitus)
on infringement proceedings with respect to domain names.
General international private law rules in Egypt are applied to determine which court
is competent.
75
Finland
Finlande
Finnland
Report Q 143
in the name of the Finnish Group
by likka RAHNASTO, Chairman, Bernt JUTHSTRÖM,
Esa KORKEAMÄKI, Rainer OESCH, Pekka TAKKI,
Craig THOMPSON, Kukka TOMMILA and Maria TOMMILA
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
As of 1 June 1997, the registration of domain names with the lANA designation fi
a)
has been administered by Finland's Telecommunications Administration Center
("TAC"), a non-profit government agency operating under Finland's Ministry of
Transport and Communications. TAC's numerous duties include, inter a/ia, radio
frequency and telephone number allocation, equipment type-approval administration, and public radio and TV end-user licensing. With respect to domain names,
TAC's duties follow from its regulation on Finnish Internet Domain Names (THK
1997/34-M, the "Regulation"). TAC's power to regulate in this matter follows from
Finland's Telecommunications Market Act (1997/396) and Telecommunications
Market Decree (1997/424).
The Regulation applies to all domain names with the lANA designation .fi taken into
use after 1 June 1997. User rights to .fi domain names registered prior to 1 June
1997 are subject to the transfer restrictions and termination rules of the Regulation.
TAC maintains the central register for all domain names with the lANA designation
fi.
Under the Regulation, TAC assigns the right to use a .fi domain name upon application submitted in writing or through the Internet in a manner approved by TAC.
The assignment of a .fi domain name entails only the right to use the domain name.
Unless pressing grounds exist, TAC may assign .fi domain name rights only to Finnish government organizations and duly registered Finnish businesses, associations, funds, and Finnish branch offices of foreign business entities. Only one domain name may be assigned to an applicant unless pressing grounds exist. TAC
charges a cost-based fee for the handng of applications, registration amendments,
name transfers, and annual register upkeep.
In the event that more than one application is submitted for the same .fi domain
name and the distinctiveness of this domain name with respect to each applicant is
essentially the same, the application submitted first prevails.
76
To be registrable, a domain name must be unambiguous and function as an address that distinguishes the applicant. As a basic premise, the registration of a domain name may not unreasonably restrict other's rights to a domain name that
functions as a distinguishable address. The use of a domain name may not infringe
on other's rights to a name; company, business, or trade name; secondary business name; trademark; secondary designation; identifier; abbreviation; network address; copyrighted work; or other matter subject to similar protection. Additionally,
the use of a domain name may not cause confusion with subject matter protected
by any of the aforementioned rights nor may the domain name be deceptive or
contrary to good custom.
Irrespective of the likelihood of confusion, companies, associations, and funds that
are duly registered are entitled to use their registered business name as a .fi domain name insofar as this name complies with the technical requirements set forth
in the Regulation. Additionally, the registration of a domain name may not deprive a
government organization from using its official name or an abbreviation of such
name.
TAC is empowered to terminate the right to use a fi domain name in the event that,
inter a/ia, the rightholder fails to pay TAC's fees, a court of law or other competent
authority has prohibited the use of the domain name, the use of the domain name,
due to, for instance, a name change, would otherwise be contrary to the Regulation, or especially pressing reasons related to domain name administration require
the termination. TAC's adverse decisions concerning the administration and assignment of fi domain names may be appealed to an administrative court. The right
to use a domain name that has been terminated may not be assigned until three (3)
months have lapsed from such termination.
The transfer or alteration of a domain name must be effected through the same applica-
tion process as required for the initial registration of rights to the domain name. The
rightholder of a changed domain name is entitled to use the former name for a maximum
of three (3) months after the change has been approved. Rightholders are required to notify TAC of any changes affecting their rights to a domain name.
Trademark Law
b)
A domain name enjoys trademark protection if it is registered as a trademark or if it
has become established in trade as a means for distinguishing the domain name
holder's products and services. The registration of a domain name as such does
not create any trademark rights.
According to the Regulation, .fi domain names must be distinctive. In Finland the
registration of a domain name is based primarily on the applicant's trade name and
secondarily on the applicant's trademark which implies that the domain name enjoys some measure of protection already before registration.
In obtaining trademark protection for a domain name, the determination of which
goodslservices are distinguished by the domain name presents complex issues.
77
The Internet can be regarded as a means of mass communications and the same
guidelines that apply to the use of trademarks in such means of mass communications as newspapers and satellite broadcast could apply to the Internet. There is no
case law addressing these issues, but it is likely that a domain name would be considered to distinguish the goods/services marketed under it.
The determination of whether a domain name is a trademark is subject to the same
principles and guidelines applicable to any other mark/symbol. This applies equally
well to the establishment of a domain name as a trademark through use.
According to the Regulation, .fi domain names must be unambiguous and distinctive and cannot be deceptive or contrary to good custom.
TAC does not examine the registrability on absolute grounds of a domain name as
closely as the Patent Office examines trademark applications. Since .fi domain
names are based primarily on the applicant's trade name registration and secondarily on the applicant's trademark registration, the Patent Office and the Trade
Registrar have already examined these questions.
Some organisations/associations have succeeded in obtaining the name of their
branch of business of trade as their domain name; for example, the domain name
of the Finnish Franchising Association is "franchising.fi". This would not be possible
for companies.
The prior use of a domain name which contains a trademark can constitute sufficient use and therefore subsequent filing by another party of the trademark would
be tantamount to a filing in bad faith. In such a case, the holder of the domain name
must prove that the other party knew about the use of the domain name. There is
no case law or other authority addressing this matter.
There is no case law addressing whether the use, without more, of a domain name
as an IP-address of a server on which goods/services are offered would suffice as
maintaining use of the trademark. Such determination would probably be made
taking into consideration other arguments and indices of use.
Domain names with the lANA designation .fi would probably be automatically regarded as being used in Finland. Domain names with other top-level designations,
e.g., .com, could be regarded as being used in Finland, but it is likely that the domain name holder will be required to prove that Internet users in Finland have, for
instance, visited the site. Nominal use, without more, would not be sufficient. There
is no case law addressing what manner of use of a domain name constitutes use in
Finland.
g)
Under the Trademark Act it is prohibited to use any symbol likely to be confused
with a trademark in distinguishing one's own goods, whether on the goods themselves or on their packaging, in advertising or commercial documents, or in any
other manner.
78
The use of an Internet domain name can constitute an infringement of anothers
trademark rights. The determination of alleged infringement in the case of a domain
name is made as in any other case of infringement under Finnish trademark law.
The use of the domain name must be commercial or understood as being commercial or the use must have commercial value and there must be a likelihood of confusion. Central to determining whether the use of a domain name infringes upon
trademark rights in the determination of what goods/services are marketed under
the domain name. Such determination may not be easy.
lt is possible that when the domain name contains a commercial mark, the use of
the domain name will automatically be regarded as commercial use. An assumption
may be made that "domain name grabbing' is commercial activity when the motive
of the activity is to sell the domain names for commercial profit.
Famous and well-known word marks are usually regarded as enjoying a broader
scope of protection for the goods/services covered. Thus a domain name containing a famous or well-known word mark can infringe another's trademark rights regardless of the goods/services which the domain name is intended to distinguish.
Only use in Finland as discussed above in part f) infringes Finnish trademarks.
Identical or confusingly similar .fi domain names always infringe Finnish trademark
rights, but for domain names with other top level designations the issue is unclear.
A readily noticeable disclaimer on a web-site would probably not be sufficient in
foreclosing the possibility of a domain name constituting a trademark infringement.
There is, however, no case law on this point and therefore the situation is unclear. If
the domain name holder technically prevents users from specific countries from di-
rectly visiting the web-site, it is likely that the use of the domain name would not
constitute trademark infringement. As discussed above in connection with parts f)
and g), only the use of a domain name in Finland can constitute an infringement of
Finnish trademark rights.
lt serves to remember that trademark rights are national rights and as such the exercise of these rights should not restrict the rights of others to use domain names
that are appropriate in their country.
A distinction is made between active measures such as marketing and passive
measures such as plain use of a domain name. With the exception of .fi domain
names, the possibility of a trademark infringement can be foreclosed if the domain
name is not actively marketed. If a domain name passively exists on the Internet
unaccompanied by any activity to promote it or any goods/services it probably
would not be regarded as being used in Finland and thus infringe Finnish trademark
rights. On the other hand, if a domain name is used in marketing in Finland, e.g.,
through brochures and TV-commercials, the use of the domain name could possibly
constitute trademark infringement in Finland.
In line with the basic principles of the Trademark Act, the use of a domain name
that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark used to distinguish a means of
communication would not, bearing in mind trademark law principles, constitute in79
fringement unless the circumstances indicate otherwise. A domain name may constitute an infringement only if it is used to distinguish goods/services identical or
similar to those distinguished by the identical or confusingly similar trademark.
The manner in which a domain name is being used is conclusive to any determination of infringement.
Trade Name Law
A domain name enjoys trade name protection if it is registered as a trade name or if
it has been established through use. A domain name can also be established
through use as a secondary business name. The registration of a domain name as
such does not create any trade name rights.
A domain name must be distinctive. Since in Finland domain names are based primarily on trade names and secondarily on trademarks, domain names usually enjoy
some measure of protection already before registration.
An international top-level domain name could be regarded to have been established through use as a trade name in Finland if it is considered as discussed
above in part f) to have been used in Finland.
Trade names and trademarks are subject to almost the same principles in Finland
so that the responses given above in connection with the trademark questions apply also to trade names.
Under the Regulation, domain names must be unambiguous and distinctive and
cannot be deceptive or contrary to good custom.
I)
A domain name can infringe a trade name right to the same extent as any other use
of an identical or confusingly similar mark/symbol. The definition of infringement
cannot be broader than the definition under the Trade Name Act.
A .fi domain name can infringe Finnish trade name rights. Other domain names can
be found to infringe Finnish trade name rights provided the domain name is as discussed above in parts g) and h) actively used in Finland
See part h).
Unfair Competition
Finland's Unfair Business Practices Act prohibits only unfair methods in marketing
or other unfair business practices. The registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to another's trademark/trade name as such is not against
the Unfair Competition Act. "Domain name grabbing" as such is also not against the
Unfair Competition Act.
Upon a review of the specific circumstances, Finland's Market Court may order an
injunction under the Unfair Business Practices Act. At least blatant "domain name
grabbing" or the imitation or interference of another's business could be regarded
80
as an unfair business practice. This does not represent a problem in Finland since
companies can obtain only one .fi domain name which is usually based on their
trade name or exceptionally trademark. If a .fi domain name dispute arises, TAC
may terminate the domain name upon an injunction order by a court or other competent authority. There have been no such cases yet.
If a home page contains unfair or misleading information and Finnish consumers
are likely to be confused, the Market Court may impose an injunction with a conditional penalty of a fine on the enterprise responsible for the information. There is no
case law on this point.
In addition to the Market Court, the Board on Business Practice of the Finnish Central Chambre of Commerce issues opinions on unfair competition. The opinions of
the Board are not legally binding but because of the expertise of its members the
resolutions of the Board are usually voluntarily followed by the parties as well as by
others.
Sanctions
If a .fi domain name infringes the trademark or trade name rights of another, a court
or other competent authority can order an injunction and thereafter TAC may terminate the domain name.
The sanctions of the Trademark Act and the Trade Name Act, including compensa-
tion for damages, apply to infringements by a domain name. The deliberate infringement of trademark or trade name rights is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years.
If the infringement violates the Unfair Business Practices Act, the Market Court can
order an injunction which if not complied with is followed by a fine.
International Private Law
Due to the territoriality of trademark and trade name rights, only the national laws of
the country granting protection to such rights is applicable to infringement disputes
concerning such rights. In accordance with its international obligations, Finland provides protection to trademarks and trade names recognized in like obligated countries.
Under both Finland's Trademark Act and Trade Name Act, the District Court of Hel-
sinki is the sole forum for disputes concerning an infringement of Finnish trademarks and trade names.
Summary
Finland's trademark and trade name laws apply equally well to Internet domain names.
Provided that the requirements of distinctiveness and commercial use are met, domain
names may be accorded protection and be subject to infringement action. Other Finnish
81
laws such as the Act on Unfair Business Practices may be applied to prevent abusive
practices with respect to the use and registration of domain names. The registration of .fi
domain names as of 1 June 1997 has been administered by a government agency which
scrutinizes registration applications to ensure that intellectual property rights in Finland are
not infringed. As a rule, .fi domain names may be assigned only to duly registered organizations and even then only one domain name may be assigned to an applicant.
Résumé
La loi finlandaise sur les marques de fabrique et les marques de commerce s'applique
également aux noms de domaine internet. La protection accordée aux marques couvre
également les noms de domaine, ceux-ci pouvant faire ainsi l'objet d'un recours pour violation de marque, sous réserve que les conditions relatives au caractère distinct et à l'utilisation commerciale soient satisfaites. D'autres lois finlandaises, telle que la Loi sur les
pratiques commerciales déloyales, peuvent être appliquées pour prévenir les pratiques
abusives dans l'utilisation et l'enregistrement des noms de domaine. L'enregistrement des
noms de domaine .fi est géré depuis le 1 juin 1997 par un Office national qui examine les
demandes d'enregistrement afin de veiller au respect des droits de propriété intellectuelle
en Finlande. En règle générale, les noms de domaine .fi ne peuvent être accordés qu'à
des organisations dûment enregistrées, chaque demandeur ne pouvant obtenir qu'un seul
nom de domaine.
Zusammenfassung
Die warenzeichenrechtlichen und firmenrechtlichen Gesetze in Finnland gelten auch für
Internet Domain-Namen. Mit den Voraussetzungen von der Unterscheidungskraft und der
kommerziellen Anwendung können die Domain-Namen den Schutz geniessen und auch
als Objekte einer Verletzungshandlung sein. Andere Gesetze, so wie das finnische Gesetz gegen unlauterem Wettbewerb, sind auch anwendbar in den Fällen wenn die Anwendung und Registrierung von Domain-Namen schmarotzerisch stattfindet. Ab dem 1.
Juni 1997 ist die Registrierung von fi. Domain-namen von einem staatlichen Büro administriert. Das Büro untersucht die Anträge um sich zu überzeugen dass die Immaterialgüterrechte in Finnland damit nicht verletzt werden. Im allgemeinen sind fi. - Domain-Namen
nur an ordnungsgemäss registrierte Organisationen übertragbar und nur ein solcher Name soll an Anmelder zugeteilt werden.
82
France
France
Frankreich
Rapport Q 143
par le Groupe français
Noms de domaine Internet, marques et noms commerciaux
Introduction
Conçu et réalisé pour répondre à des besoins spécifiques totalement étrangers à ceux du
monde des affaires, le réseau INTERNET constitue aujourd'hui un mode de communication très apprécié des opérateurs commerciaux pour assurer, au plan mondial, la promotion et la diffusion de produits ou de services divers.
Dans un souci de convivialité, chaque serveur est identifiable par un nom, un nom de
domaine personnalisé, sous lequel sont
-
émis vers n'importe quelle machine reliée au réseau quel que soit son lieu d'implantation,
et reçus des messages sans considération du lieu d'émission.
Bien qu'il existe deux types de noms de domaine de premier niveau, d'une part les noms
de domaine nationaux, d'autre part les noms de domaine génériques sans rattachement à un pays, l'aptitude à communiquer sans limite territoriale est la même pour l'ensemble de ces noms de domaine.
Ainsi n'existe-t-il, de ce point de vue, aucune différence dans le mode de fonctionnement d'une machine identifiée par un nom de domaine national et celui d'une machine identifiée par un nom de domaine générique sans rattachement à un pays quelconque.
La partie du nom de domaine qui nous intéresse présentement est celle qui identifie la
machine connectée au réseau (nom de domaine de deuxième niveau).
Cette identification s'effectue par l'emploi d'un nom qui peut être arbitrairement choisi mais
qui, en pratique, se révèle fréquemment être une marque, un nom commercial, la dénomination sociale ou l'enseigne de l'attributaire du site INTERNET.
L'attribution d'un nom de domaine à un caractère contractuel et précaire s'effectue sur
base d'un principe dit de premier arrivé premier servi. Ce principe est de portée générale car aucune homonymie n'est admise au sein d'un même niveau de noms de do83
maine. Par contre, toute adjonction, suppression ou modification même mineure apportée
à un signe constituant un nom de domaine permet, selon les règles d'INTERNET, d'attribuer, nonobstant ce nom de domaine antérieur, un nouveau nom de domaine.
Le fait que le réseau INTERNET soit structuré sur base du mode d'exercice d'une activité:
.COM - .NET - ... et non sur base d'un domaine d'activité (hors le cas particulier des
avocats pour la zone FR) illustre le caractère excessif de l'application aveugle dune
règle, certes empruntée au domaine des signes distinctifs, mais tempérée dans ce domaine par les principes de spécialité et de risque de confusion, ce qui n'est pas le cas
pour l'INTERNET.
Dès lors que tout site INTERNET, rattaché à un nom de domaine générique de premier
niveau, offre les mêmes possibilités de connexion, le critère de sélection d'une zone
rattachée ou non à un pays de préférence à une autre n'est pas de nature technique.
II n'est pas non plus dicté (ou ne devrait pas l'être) par des considérations économiques.
Un domaine générique de premier niveau sans rattachement à un pays déterminé n'est
pas un substitut à un faisceau de domaines nationaux, contrairement à ce que représente un enregistrement international en matière de marques par rapport à une pluralité
de dépôts nationaux.
Comme cela a été indiqué, il n'existe aucune différence dans le mode opératoire des diverses machines identifiées par un nom de domaine générique de premier niveau national
ou non.
Une entreprise exerçant une activité internationale n'a pas non plus l'obligation de
solliciter l'attribution de noms de domaine dans les divers pays ou elle opère.
Une seule adresse, dans un domaine générique de premier niveau, est suffisante.
Spontanément le nom de domaine national est cependant considéré par de nombreux
opérateurs économiques comme une solution par défaut: le premier choix étant pour eux
à l'évidence le point générique COM qui incarnerait en lui-même une fonction plus internationale.
L'existence de domaines génériques de premier niveau sans rattachement à un pays
quelconque rend aujourd'hui délicate la recherche de solutions à des conflits entre des
droits sur des signes distinctifs antérieurs et des noms de domaine.
Le choix d'un domaine générique de premier niveau de préférence à un autre pourrait, à
l'avenir, être orienté par des règles spécifiques susceptibles de déboucher sur des solutions plus satisfaisantes en matière de délai, de coût et d'exécution des décisions rendues.
Misant sur la complexité de telles situations, certains opérateurs animés d'un esprit de
lucre ont procédé à la réservation de nombreux noms de domaine correspondant à des
marques ou à des appellations commerciales de tiers notoires, renommées ou simple84
ment connues. Il s'agissait pour eux de se doter de noms de domaine non pour en faire
usage mais pour en faire le commerce.
De telles réservations manifestement abusives sont susceptibles d'être annulées sur base
d'un signe distinctif antérieur en application d'une législation spécifique le protégeant ou
de la notion générale de fraude.
Dans le but de se mettre à l'abri de telles mésaventures dont les conséquences ont souvent été caricaturées, de multiples réservations à caractère purement conservatoire ont
été effectuées comme en témoigne le nombre élevé de sites en construction.
Il apparaît qu'une information objective des milieux du commerce et de l'industrie mais
aussi des milieux juridiques ou liés aux activités de l'INTERNET fait lourdement défaut et
la précipitation avec laquelle des principes juridiques éprouvés risquent d'être mis entre
parenthèses au nom d'un modernisme effréné ne peut être que critiquée.
Questions
(a)
Les groupes sont invités à commenter les efforts susmentionnés pour:
Eviter de problémes légaux liés à des noms de domaine par l'adoption de
conditions d'enregistrement plus strictes (cf. 1. 12);
Résoudre de manière extrajudiciaire de tels problèmes (cf. 1. 13) et à relater
les efforts et les mesures actuellement entrepris dans leurs propres pays ou
régions, ainsi qu'à émettre leurs propres suggestions sur des mesures com-
parables ou sur la solution des problèmes spécifiques des noms de domaine.
S'agissant de l'attribution des noms de domaine, le principe du premier arrivé premier
servi devrait être replacé dans un contexte sectoriel et non plus catégoriel.
La création de nouveaux domaines génériques de premier niveau non rattachés à un
pays, auxquels s'appliqueraient des procédures de médiation et d'arbitrage, dont la mise
en oeuvre aurait été acceptée par le titulaire d'un droit antérieur, débouchant sur des décisions dont la portée serait limitée à l'inscription ou au rejet d'un nom de domaine, liant
les unités d'enregistrement mais ne modifiant pas les compétences judiciaires relatives à
l'appréciation des droits de Propriété Intellectuelle, constituerait une amélioration de la
situation des titulaires de droits de Propriété Intellectuelle et des demandeurs de noms de
domaines.
Par contre, le fait qu'il ne soit pas envisagé, dans l'immédiat, que ces nouvelles règles
s'appliquent au domaine de premier niveau COM en limite considérablement l'intérêt.
Est-il réaliste d'estimer que les <(clients>) potentiels du .COM se reporteront sur le nouveau
domaine FIRM auquel les règles envisagées s'appliqueraient?
Par ailleurs, la règle du premier arrivé premier servi, qui n'est pas remise en cause dans
les travaux en cours, continuera à empêcher des coexistences de noms de domaine de
85
deuxième niveau au-delà de ce qu'exigent les règles juridiques applicables aux signes
distinctifs.
C'est pourquoi il est recommandé d'orienter les réflexions vers une nouvelle architecture
de tous les domaines génériques de premier niveau, lesquels pourraient être organisés à
la manière des répertoires et annuaires professionnels (pages jaunes).
La création de domaines spécifiques aux marques (.TM) n'apporte pas de solution aux
problèmes posés par la règle du premier arrivé premier servi et n'aide guère à la consultation des répertoires INTERNET.
Un sous-domaine TM ne devrait pas être une liste de marques mais une rubrique dans
laquelle figureraient, le cas échéant, les intervenants dans ce domaine.
Par exemple, un sous-domaine national TM (marques) d'un domaine de premier niveau
FR pourrait comporter des sous-rubriques telles que:
-
GOV
dans laquelle figurerait I'INPI,
-
INT
dans laquelle figureraient I'OMPI, l'OHM I,
-
ASSO
dans laquelle figureraient I'AIPPI, I'AFPPI, l'UNION DES FABRICANTS,
-
ORG
dans laquelle figurerait ta COMPAGNIE DES CONSEILS EN
PROPRIETE INDUSTRIELLE,
-
CONSEILS
dans laquelle figureraient les Conseils en Propriété Industrielle,
AVOCATS SPECIALISES
EDU
dans laquelle figureraient le CEIPI, l'IRPI, le CUERPI, le CENTRE PAUL ROUBIER, les facultés de droit délivrant un enseignement spécialisé,
Quant à la solution consistant à créer, pour des marques connues, un régime particulier
(intervention de groupes spéciaux chargés des recours administratifs) et de critères objectifs de mesure et d'appréciation de la «notoriété» d'un droit antérieur, elle créerait une
situation nouvelle non seulement dans les rapports - entre marques (noms commerciaux)
et noms de domaines - mais aussi entre marques (noms commerciaux) et marques (noms
commerciaux).
II existe déjà, dans le domaine des marques, des incertitudes liées à des qualifications
multiples: marques notoirement connues, marques de haute renommée, marques de renommée. La confusion serait encore plus grande sinon totale avec l'introduction de nouvelles notions: marques internationalement connues, globalement connues,
S'il est opportun de rechercher des définitions homogènes au plan international et des
critères pour apprécier la notoriété, de telles études ne devraient pas trouver leur place
86
dans un exercice exclusivement réservé à INTERNET de surcroît menées à marche forcée.
li ne paraît pas, non plus, souhaitable de confier à des experts, même spécialisés en Propriété Industrielle, le soin de régler des conflits entre des notoriétés parallèles pour lesquels il n'existe, aujourd'hui, aucune norme juridique.
Un effort a été fait en France dans le but d'éliminer, au stade même de la demande,
des réservations à caractère abusif.
Seuls sont admis comme noms de domaine des signes déjà protégés au profit du demandeur soit comme marques soit comme désignations d'entreprises.
Cette orientation parait très positive.
Mais le système en place ne comporte, par contre, aucune avancée en matière d'architecture des zones susceptibles d'organiser des coexistences parfaitement admises en
matière de marques ou d'appellations commerciales.
L'organisme de gestion du domaine FR de l'INTERNET n'est doté d'aucun pouvoir
d'examen. Cette solution n'est pas un point faible et doit, tout au contraire, être approuvée car il n'apparaît certainement pas souhaitable de reconnaître, en matière de réservation de noms de domaine, à des organismes publics ou privés les prérogatives et a
fortiori plus de prérogatives que n'ont, en matière de marques, les Offices nationaux de
Propriété Intellectuelle.
Il est ici rappelé que l'INPI ne connaît de conflits en matière de marques que ceux nés
d'une opposition et que cette compétence limitée ne lui a été reconnue qu'en échange de
garanties et notamment celle d'un recours judiciaire contre les décisions du Directeur.
S'il peut apparaître souhaitable de favoriser l'arbitrage ou la médiation, il serait certainement injustifié de créer une quelconque obligation à l'égard des titulaires de droits
antérieurs jusque-là assurés, en cas d'atteintes, d'une compétence judiciaire et de conférer à quiconque un monopole d'arbitrage ou de médiation.
De plus, dans le nouveau système proposé, les procédures de médiation et d'arbitrage, la
constitution de groupes spéciaux chargés des recours administratifs ne sont envisagées
que pour de nouveaux domaines génériques de premier niveau et non pour le domaine
COM qui subsiste au moins pour l'instant en l'état, alors qu'il est précisément la cause de
nombreuses difficultés.
S'il se révélait au cours de la procédure de médiation ou d'arbitrage que les parties sont
titulaires de droits sur des signes distinctifs relevant d'ordres juridiques différents, circonstances empêchant l'attribution d'un nom de domaine, il conviendrait de constater cet
empêchement et non de reconnaître aux médiateurs ou arbitres la possibilité d'attribuer le
nom de domaine à l'un plutôt qu'à l'autre faute de règles juridiques autorisant une telle
solution.
87
Les règles juridiques applicables aux droits de Propriété Intellectuelle et les compétences judiciaires doivent s'imposer aux principes de gestion interne de IINTERNET.
Une publicité rapide des demandes de réservation de noms de domaine devrait être en-
visagée. L'activation d'un site devrait être différée pendant un délai raisonnable permettant aux titulaires de droits antérieurs de rechercher, s'ils le souhaitent, une solution
(amiable, médiation, arbitrage, ...) avant que le demandeur n'encourt les conséquences
de la fermeture éventuelle d'un site déjà actif.
Mais, l'existence d'un système d'activation différée d'un site ne devrait, en aucune ma-
nière, créer une forclusion, le titulaire d'un droit antérieur devrait pouvoir invoquer
celui-ci à tout moment.
Un effort d'harmonisation des règles d'administration, de gestion et de fonctionnement
des noms de domaine des diverses zones nationales devrait être entrepris; on peut penser que la démarche devrait être facilitée par le fait que le nom de domaine ne constituant pas une catégorie nouvelle de signes distinctifs, il n'y aurait pas à élaborer,
dans le cadre des travaux sur l'INTERNET, des règles de droit matériel mais seulement
des règles administratives.
lt serait, en outre opportun, dans le cadre des travaux normaux de I'OMPI, de poursuivre
l'oeuvre d'harmonisation sur les questions qui ont été mises en lumière dans le constat
d'une globalisation de l'économie.
(b)
Un nom de domaine peut-II constituer une marque valable, et si oui, à quelles conditions? Prière de développer les problèmes et particularités qui peuvent se poser à
l'égard (cf. 2.1 -2.4)
Il n'est pas rare qu'un même signe protégé comme marque soit à la fois protégé comme
marque et inscrit comme nom de domaine.
En France, le cas est fréquent puisque l'enregistrement préalable comme marque (le dépôt) est requis dès lors que le signe n'est pas une dénomination sociale, une raison sociale, un nom commercial.
L'inscription en .TM est subordonnée à l'enregistrement (au dépôt) du signe comme marque.
De ce fait, le nom de domaine se trouve indirectement soumis aux conditions de validité
de la marque.
Il est des cas où le signe constituant le nom de domaine est, par ailleurs, déposé comme
marque.
L'élément du nom de domaine protégeable en tant que marque est la partie arbitraire du nom qui identifie l'attributaire du site et non pas le nom de domaine de premier niveau (INT, COM, FR, ...) qui ne devrait normalement pas figurer dans le signe déposé comme marque. Le domaine de premier niveau n'a qu'une fonction de localisation et
88
est à la disposition de chacun des attributaires d'un nom de domaine dans la zone considérée.
Bien évidemment, la protection comme marque implique que le signe distinctif en question ait fait l'objet d'une demande ou d'un enregistrement de marque.
Dans quelle mesure les règles sur la nullité absolue des marques sont-elles aussi
applicables aux noms de domaine (cf. 2.5)?
En France, pour la zone «TM-FR», le signe (nom de domaine de troisième niveau) doit
avoir préalablement été enregistré (déposé) comme marque. Si l'enregistrement de la
marque n'est pas obtenu ou est annulé, il doit être procédé à la fermeture du site.
Néanmoins, l'attribution d'un nom de domaine n'étant pas aujourd'hui sectorielle on peut
concevoir que le dépôt antérieur invoqué à l'appui de la demande n'ait aucun lien avec
l'activité qui sera développée sur le site.
On peut estimer que la validité de la marque, pour certains produits ou services, n'implique pas celle du nom de domaine pour d'autres produits ou services si ce dernier se révèle être descriptif ou trompeur eu égard aux activités effectivement exercées sur le site.
Pour la zone «FR» et les sous-domaines autres que «TM-FR», les motifs de nullité absolue sont ceux qui s'appliquent à la catégorie de noms concernés.
li est rappelé, pour mémoire, que la charte du MINITEL reprend les conditions de validité
contenues dans le Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle: le signe doit être distinctif. II ne peut
être composé exclusivement de la désignation nécessaire ou générique du service, ni exclusivement de termes indiquant la qualité essentielle ou la composition du service. Les
noms génériques, les noms communs sont interdits pour ne pas nuire à une libre concurrence. Le code ne doit pas porter atteinte aux droits d'autrui, à l'ordre public ou aux bonnes moeurs; être déjà attribué ou réservé à un autre fournisseur de service; être déceptif.
Ce que ne fait pas la charte de nommage INTERNET pour la zone FR.
Néanmoins, les règles relatives à la protection des consommateurs, à la tromperie,
à l'ordre public, à la liberté de la concurrence valent pour tous les signes utilisés
dans la vie des affaires et, par conséquent, pour les noms de domaine.
L'utilisation antérieure d'un nom de domaine qui inclut une marque peut-elle constituer un usage suffisant pour amener à qualifier de dépôt de mauvaise foi le dépôt
ultérieur de cette marque par un tiers (cf. 2.6 et 7)? Si oui, quelles sont les conditions d'un tel usage suffisant?
Bien qu'un nom de domaine ne bénéficie pas d'une protection sui generis, il devrait
être admissible, en cas de fraude ou de faute d'un tiers (abus de droit) , que le titulaire
d'un tel nom puisse s'opposer à son adoption ultérieure comme marque sur base de la
concurrence déloyale.
89
La question est ainsi résolue en droit français pour les marques d'usage bien que le Code
de la Propriété Intellectuelle (article L 712.1) précise que la propriété de la marque s'acquiert par l'enregistrement.
C'est en ce sens que les tribunaux français se sont prononcés pour sanctionner le dépôt
(frauduleux) comme marque d'un code télématique. La jurisprudence MINITEL enseigne
qu'une adresse TELETEL ne constitue pas une nouvelle catégorie de signe distinctif
et que, faute d'apporter une preuve du caractère frauduleux de l'adoption de la même ap-
pellation par un tiers comme signe distinctif, le bénéficiaire du code d'accès peut se
voir déclaré irrecevable à agir contre ce tiers et peut même se voir condamné en
contrefaçon.
Les juges considèrent qu'un code d'accès MINITEL n'est pas un signe distinctif aux motifs
qu'il n'a pas vocation à la pérennité et en raison de son mode d'acquisition contractuel.
En l'absence de fraude, il a été jugé, à plusieurs reprises, qu'un code TELETEL ne
constitue pas une antériorité opposable à une marque postérieure au sens de l'article L 711-4 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle.
C'est le caractère frauduleux de l'adoption de la même appellation comme signe
distinctif qui permet à un code d'accès de l'emporter sur un droit privatif postérieur.
Les tribunaux ont, par exemple, considéré qu'une cession de marque postérieure au début de l'exploitation d'un code par un tiers était révélatrice de la volonté du cessionnaire
de profiter de la publicité effectuée par un concurrent en utilisant Ieffet absolu du monopole conféré par la marque.
Une telle décision est conforme à une jurisprudence établie concernant l'acquisition frauduleuse d'une marque dans le seul but de l'opposer aux tiers. Les juges estiment que le
caractère frauduleux d'une telle acquisition rend à tout le moins la cession inopposable
aux tiers.
(e)
L 'utilisation d'un nom de domaine comme adresse IP d'un serveur sur lequel sont
offerts des produits et/ou services pour lesquels le nom de domaine est enregistré
comme marque peut-elle être qualifiée d'usage assurant le maintien de la marque
(cf. 2.8 et 9)?
Il est fréquent qu'un même signe soit utilisé comme marque, dénomination sociale, nom
commercial ou enseigne, aujourd'hui comme nom de domaine.
Chaque forme d'usage (et chaque atteinte) est alors régie soit par des règles spécifiques
soit par la concurrence déloyale.
Les tribunaux français n'hésitent pas à prononcer la déchéance d'une marque pour non
usage alors même que le signe protégé est exploité en tant que nom commercial par
exemple.
90
Une marque, pour être exploitée, doit être appliquée à des produits fabriqués ou vendus
afin de les distinguer des produits d'autres provenances; certes, il n'est pas exigé que la
marque soit apposée sur chaque produit; mais encore faut-il que le produit soit désigné
aux yeux du public, mis en distribution sous cette marque.
Il est rappelé, pour mémoire, que le droit français impose certaines conditions pour que
l'usage soit opérant au regard d'une marque protégée sur le territoire français (CPI, art. L
714-5)
L'usage requis pour le maintien d'un enregistrement de marque en France doit être sérieux, effectif, à titre de marque, permettre de distinguer les produits et services visés dans l'enregistrement. Le simple fait d'avoir une adresse IP ne peut pas constituer
un usage «sérieux» de marque. La jurisprudence exige qu'il y ait une exploitation réelle
sérieuse, et non équivoque se traduisant notamment par le fait que la clientèle puisse se
procurer de façon certaine les produits ou services marqués (Paris, 25 mai 1989, à propos
d'une action publicitaire non suivie de commercialisation).
Les produits et services couverts par la marque doivent être offerts en France, à la clientèle française (Paris, 2 juillet 1975). L'importation de quelques échantillons et des publicités faites dans des journaux anglo-saxons, fussent-ils distribués en France, est insuffisante pour le maintien de la marque.
Un signe, utilisé à titre de dénomination sociale, de nom commercial, ou d'enseigne
pour désigner l'entreprise elle-même, et non les produits qu'elle commercialise,
n'est pas exploité à titre de marque.
Il en est ainsi d'un usage du signe sur des factures pour identifier, non les produits vendus, mais la société elle-même.
Ces règles doivent trouver une application en matière de nom de domaine.
Un nom de domaine en soi, ne peut pas valoir en droit français comme usage d'une marque de produits ou de services quelconques.
A propos du MINITEL, des recommandations ont été faites aux abonnés pour qu'ils protègent le signe qu'ils ont adopté comme code TELETEL en tant que marque pour des services télématiques.
Lorsqu'un même signe est protégé pour désigner des services de télécommunications et
est adopté comme nom de domaine, l'usage de ce dernier assure-t-il, en l'absence de
toute autre forme d'exploitation, le maintien des droits conférés par la marque.
Les avis sont partagés car le commerce électronique ne s'identifie pas nécessairement à
un service de télécommunication.
(f)
Le caractère mondial d'INTERNET a-t-II pour effet de satisfaire automatiquement
l'exigence selon laquelle l'usage assurant le maintien de la marque doit se faire
dans le territoire où celle-ci est protégée? Dans la négative, prière de décrire les
autres exigences à remplir (cf. 2.8)
91
L'usage, en tant que nom de domaine de niveau national ou non rattaché à un pays d'un
signe protégé comme marque, ne vaut pas en tant que tel comme usage de la marque en
France. En tout état de cause, l'exploitation à l'étranger d'une marque protégée en France
ne vaut pas comme exploitation de celle-ci. Il devrait en être de même à l'étranger mais il
s'agit d'une question à laquelle il ne peut être répondu globalement, les notions d'usage et
d'usage suffisant variant d'un pays à l'autre.
Dans le cas où des produits sont présentés sur le site, même non revêtus de la marque,
qu'ils sont disponibles et qu'ils font l'objet de transactions commerciales dans le territoire
d'un pays, on peut estimer que cette forme d'usage est suffisante pour le maintien de la
marque dans ce pays.
(g)
Un nom de domaine INTERNET peut-II porter atteinte aux droits d'un tiers sur une
marque? Si oui, à quelles conditions? Prière de définir l'étendue de la protection
des marques en ce qui concerne les noms de domaine et de parler également,
dans votre réponse, des marques notoires et de haute renommée (cf. 2.10 et 11).
Un nom de domaine peut à l'évidence porter atteinte aux droits qu'un tiers peut détenir sur
une marque.
Pour la France, en application des articles L 713-2 et L 713-3 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle, la reproduction, l'imitation, l'usage ou la reproduction non autorisés du signe
protégé constituent des actes de contrefaçon.
En cas de conflit entre un signe distinctif antérieur et un code TELETEL, les tribunaux
français ont élaboré une jurisprudence aujourd'hui établie, fondée sur l'application des
règles de droit régissant les signes distinctifs et sur la primauté de ces règles sur une
réglementation administrative dont l'objet ne dépasse pas la simple gestion d'un fichier
d'adresses électroniques.
Si le code TELETEL se révèle porter effectivement atteinte à un droit antérieur, le tribunal
ordonne la fermeture du site.
Des décisions en ce sens ont été rendues en faveur de titulaires de marques antérieures:
Reflets DN /3615 DN (TGI Strasbourg, 15décembre 1988)
SORAYA / code d'accès SORAYA (CA. Paris, 1er juillet 1993)
NABAB / Codes d'accès NABAB et NABABE (Paris, 19 décembre 1995)
ou en faveur de titulaires de dénominations sociales ou noms commerciaux antérieurs:
MICTEL / 3615 MICTEL (TGI Paris, 20 mai 1994).
92
Le tribunal a estimé, dans cette dernière affaire, que FRANCE TELECOM qui s'était attribué le code d'accès 3615 MICTEL ne pouvait prétendre que cette dénomination était disponible alors qu'elle était la dénomination sociale d'une société ayant pour activité le négoce et les services informatiques et qu'elle était, par ailleurs, déposée à titre de marque.
Il en est ainsi lorsque les signes sont identiques ou prêtent à confusion et lorsque les activités couvertes par le nom de domaine entrent en conflit avec les produits ou services
protégés par la marque antérieure.
Il faut, enfin, que le nom de domaine et la marque antérieure intéressent un même territoire. L'ouverture d'un site, dans un domaine de premier niveau, qu'il soit générique ou
national peut être considérée comme une sollicitation implicite de la clientèle où
qu'elle se situe.
Il existe donc une potentialité de conflit entre un nom de domaine et un droit sur un signe
distinctif antérieur. C'est en ce sens que le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bordeaux
s'est prononcé en date du 22juillet1996 pour sanctionner le titulaire français d'un site
générique .COM sur base d'une marque antérieure française appartenant à une société française.
Les tribunaux de New-York ont, pour leur part, estimé que le fait que des clients américains soient invités à télécharger des images du site Web «playmen», localisé en Italie,
mais accessible à tout internaute, constituait une sollicitation pour la souscription du magazine «Playmen» et participait d'une distribution aux Etats-Unis, en violation d'une décision américaine antérieure, qui avait prohibé toute distribution aux Etats-Unis de magazines contrefaisant la marque «Playboy».
En droit français, une marque notoire ou de renommée bénéficie d'une protection qui dépasse le cadre de la spécialité. En application de l'article L 713-5 du Code de la Propriété
Intellectuelle, l'emploi d'un signe identique ou similaire à celui qui constitue la marque notoire ou de renommée engage la responsabilité civile de son auteur même si cet usage
porte sur des produits ou des services différents de ceux que protègent la marque notoire
ou la marque renommée dès lors qu'il est de nature à porter préjudice au propriétaire de
la marque ou que cet emploi constitue une exploitation injustifiée de la notoriété ou de la
renommée de la marque. Un tel usage est sanctionné non par le droit des marques mais
par les dispositions générales relatives à la responsabilité civile.
Dans un conflit opposant une marque antérieure à un code MINITEL, il a été jugé que la
dénomination ETAM utilisée pour un service de MINITEL à vocation érotique portait atteinte à la marque ETAM déposée pour des articles de lingerie et considérée comme notoire (TGI, Paris 25 novembre 1993).
(h)
Quelles mesures peuvent être entreprises par le titulaire d'un nom de domaine pour
éviter que son utilisation du nom de domaine constitue la violation d'une marque
dans des territoires où le titulaire du nom de domaine n'a pas d'intérêts commerciaux? Si de telles mesures existent, élaborer le contenu d'une pareille limitation?
(cf. 2.12).
93
Il n'apparaît pas que des mises en garde sur une disponibilité limitée des produits ou services soient, en elles-mêmes, suffisantes pour repousser l'action d'un titulaire d'antériorité. En effet, le nom de domaine n'identifie pas les produits présentés comme indisponibles. C'est l'usage du nom de domaine lui-même qui porte atteinte au droit antérieur.
Quelle est la réponse à la question posée plus haut sous 2.13 en ce qui concerne
l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine INTERNET pour des produits ou services quelconques, si ce nom de domaine est identique ou similaire à la marque d'un tiers,
enregistrée pour des moyens de communication?
Le titulaire d'une marque est en droit de s'opposer à l'usage du signe protégé quelle que
soit la forme de cet usage dès lors qu'un risque de confusion existe pour le public.
Le risque de confusion implique que les produits ou les services concernés sont similaires. Il existe, en droit français, une jurisprudence concernant la similarité dans le secteur
de la communication.
Le 15janvier 1993, le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris a-t-il affirmé que l'édition de
journaux et l'activité d'une chaîne de télévision étaient des services similaires. En l'espèce, l'exploitation, sous la dénomination d'Euronews, d'une chaîne de télévision pouvait
légitimement apparaître, malgré l'adjonction du terme Editorial, dans l'esprit du consommateur, comme le prolongement, le complément ou l'accessoire de journaux et de revues
Euronews. D'où un risque de confusion certain.
De même, le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Strasbourg, statuant en référé le 15 décembre 1988 a retenu la possible confusion, chez tout consommateur, entre un service télématique émettant des informations particulières et un périodique consacré à l'information.
II est intéressant d'établir une analogie avec les codes télématiques, dans la mesure où
ceux-ci sont toujours liés aux services de communication télématique, même s'ils peuvent
parallèlement être exploités en association avec des services très divers (par exemple des
messageries, des informations financières et des services de vente).
Eu égard à cette jurisprudence, une marque déposée pour des services de communication devrait permettre le refus d'inscription ou le retrait d'un nom de domaine identique ou
similaire au signe protégé s'il existe effectivement un risque de confusion entre les activités du titulaire de la marque et celles de l'attributaire du nom de domaine.
Il y a lieu, comme l'a rappelé la Cour d'Appel de Paris, le 29 mars 1993 d'apprécier si les
entreprises en cause ont la même finalité: ((si les marques LOCAVAC et LOCATVAC désignent des services télématiques et non des services d'agence de voyage, de location et
d'organisation de vacances, cette différence tient exclusivement aux moyens de communication utilisés - le MINITEL notamment, en l'occurrence - et non à la finalité de l'entreprise, qui est dans les deux cas, exactement-la même».
L'enregistrement et l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine INTERNET peuvent-ils suffire
à créer et à maintenir un droit de nom commercial compris dans le nom de domaine
de deuxième niveau? Vu le caractère mondial d'INTERNET, suffit-il d'une utilisation
94
du nom de domaine qui inclut le nom de la société du titulaire du nom de domaine?
Dans la négative, quelles conditions supplémentaires doivent être remplies?
Traditionnellement, le nom commercial désigne rentreprise.
Le nom commercial a d'autant plus une vocation naturelle à devenir un nom de domaine, que le public pense fréquemment que le nom de domaine est, en fait, le nom de
l'entreprise (ce qui se révèle souvent exact).
L'utilisation d'un nom de domaine ne suffit cependant pas à constituer un droit de
nom commercial sur un signe qui ne serait, par ailleurs, pas utilisé comme tel.
Une telle forme d'usage pourrait, par contre, être considérée comme susceptible d'assu-
rer la création, le maintien d'un droit sur un nom commercial dans la mesure où les
conditions de cet usage lui conféreraient une fonction qui dépasse celle d'une simple adresse électronique.
Tel pourrait être le cas si le référencement du nom de domaine était assuré sur les moteurs de recherche correspondant à l'activité commerciale de la société concernée.
(k)
Dans quelle mesure les règles sur la nullité absolue des noms commerciaux sontelles aussi applicables aux noms de domaine (cf. 3.4)?
Les motifs classiques d'invalidité d'un nom commercial devraient s'appliquer aux noms de
domaine constitués de noms commerciaux.
Cette solution s'impose en France puisqu'un nom de domaine est soit une marque auquel
cas les motifs de nullité absolue sont ceux qui s'appliquent à de tels signes, soit un signe
identifiant une entreprise et, dans ce dernier cas, ce sont les règles applicables à cette
catégorie de signes distinctifs qui s'appliquent.
(I)
Le caractère mondial d'INTERNET implIque-t-il que les crItères normaux de l'atteinte à un nom commercial s'appliquent à toute utilisation d'un nom de domaine
similaire ou identique? ou doit-il y avoir une relation spécifique (une certaine sorte)
entre le pays ou la région de votre groupe et l'utilisation du nom de domaine (ou les
offres qui sont faites sur le sei'veur dont le nom de domaine et l'adresse, cf. 3.5)?
Le fait que le droit au nom commercial puisse naître d'un simple usage, que les conditions
de sa protection et la définition des atteintes diffèrent très sensiblement d'un pays à l'autre, font estimer qu'il ne serait pas réaliste de considérer que l'adoption comme nom de
domaine d'un signe bénéficiant dans un pays d'une protection en tant que nom commercial porte de ce seul fait nécessairement atteinte à ce droit.
Il conviendrait de structurer INTERNET de telle sorte que chaque nom de domaine puisse
être rattaché à une activité. Des coexistences entre noms de domaine et noms commerciaux homonymes seraient alors possibles entre domaines d'activité non concurrentiels.
95
L'atteinte implique que le nom de domaine soit utilisé dans l'aire géographique où le nom
commercial est protégé, dans un secteur d'activité concurrentiel de celui couvert par le
nom commercial.
Quant au fait de savoir s'il y a ou non atteinte, il faut s'en remettre aux règles juridiques
applicables dans le pays où le nom commercial est protégé.
Quelles mesures peuvent être entreprises par le titulaire d'un nom de domaine pour
éviter que son utilisation constitue la violation du nom commercial d'un tiers dans
des territoires où le titulaire du nom de domaine n'a pas d'intérêts commerciaux
(significatifs)? Ici encore, l'utilisation d'une réserve serait-elle efficace? Si oui, élaborer le contenu d'une telle réserve (cf. 3.6).
L'adoption et l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine de premier niveau national ou générique
constituent une sollicitation de la clientèle sans limitation territoriale à laquelle le titulaire
d'un droit antérieur (nom commercial) peut s'opposer dans un contexte de concurrence.
Les sources de confusion entre nom commercial et nom de domaine sont encore plus
nombreuses que celles existant entre marque et nom de domaine.
II n'apparaît pas que des mises en garde sur une disponibilité limitée des produits
ou des services soient en elles-mêmes suffisantes pour écarter un risque de confus ion.
Il ne paraît pas possible d'apporter une réponse globale à la question posée. Seuls les
éléments de fait d'une espèce permettent, en effet, de vérifier s'il existe ou non un risque
effectif de confusion.
L'enregistrement et l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine identique ou similaire à une
marque et/ou à un nom commercial d'un tiers peuvent-ils être contestés avec succès sur la base des règles générales sur la concurrence déloyale ou la faute? Si
oui, à quelles conditions? Si un élément de mauvaise foi est requis, prière d'en définir la nature et de donner des exemples. Prière de traiter des moyens légaux de
faire face à la pratique dénommée «captation de noms de domaine» (cf. 4.1 et 2)
Le nom de domaine, constitué par une simple déclaration, est révélateur de l'identité d'un
acteur économique. Il peut entrer localement en conflit, au-delà du principe de spécialité,
avec une marque antérieure ou encore avec un nom commercial.
Les principes de la responsabilité civile permettent alors de régler un tel conflit.
I.
Litige entre une marque première et un nom de domaine
Il s'agit bien évidemment d'envisager les conditions de protection de la marque au-delà
du principe de spécialité. L'article L 713-5 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle définit
les conditions de protection d'une marque de renommée pour des produits ou services
non similaires à ceux désignés dans l'enregistrement lorsque l'usage qui est fait du signe
protégé porte préjudice au titulaire de la marque ou constitue une exploitation injustifiée de sa renommée.
96
Un tel usage engage alors la responsabilité civile de son auteur.
L'usage sur le territoire français d'un nom de domaine constitué d'éléments empruntés à
la marque antérieure d'un tiers ayant acquis une renommée peut donc être sanctionné par
les dispositions de cet article.
Cette hypothèse suppose donc que le titulaire de la marque antérieure ait, non seulement
beaucoup investi pour promouvoir le produit ou le service qu'elle désigne, mais encore
réussi dans ces investissements en conquérant ainsi la notoriété nécessaire à cette protection.
Il s'agit bien de protéger une renommée, forcément identifiée par le public, et donc des
investissements qui en sont à l'origine.
Détourné par une simple formalité de réservation, le bénéfice de cette renommée constitue indiscutablement un manquement à la loyauté. Ce détournement résulte du préjudice ainsi causé au titulaire de la marque; il s'établit également lorsque l'adoption du nom
de domaine ne peut se justifier par aucune logique propre à son titulaire, la seule explication possible apparaissant alors être le désir de détourner la renommée de la marque
antérieure.
Préjudice du titulaire de la marque et agression délibérée que rien ne justifie constituent
les conditions de la mise en cause de la responsabilité civile.
Le simple acte de réservation du nom de domaine suffit-il à engager la responsabilité de
son titulaire, ou bien l'usage de ce nom de domaine est-il nécessaire?
Il apparaît que lorsque rien ne justifie, au regard de son titulaire, le choix du nom de
domaine sa simple réservation constitue une agression qui doit être sanctionnée.
Par contre, si le choix du nom de domaine résulte d'une logique établie, son usage
seul mériterait alors d'être sanctionné lorsqu'il porte préjudice au titulaire de la
marque antérieure. Ce préjudice résulte du risque de détournement de notoriété de la
marque antérieure.
Il semble, dans ces conditions, logique de penser que l'élément intentionnel sera établi
lorsque le réservataire ne pourra pas justifier de son choix alors qu'il ne le sera pas
nécessairement dans l'autre hypothèse.
Il.
Litige entre un nom de domaine et un nom commercial antérieur
Le Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle prévoit, en son article L 711-4, qu'une marque peut
porter atteinte à un nom commercial antérieur, connu sur l'ensemble du territoire, s'il
existe entre les signes un risque de confusion.
Le risque de confusion est dans cette hypothèse générateur d'une dilution de la renommée du nom commercial acquise sur l'ensemble du territoire et donc incontestable.
97
Cette dilution ou ce risque de dilution de la renommée peut également s'accompagner
d'un détournement de clientèle générateur par définition d'un préjudice pour le titulaire du nom commercial.
La preuve de l'existence du risque de confusion sur l'ensemble du territoire suffit donc à
engager la responsabilité de l'auteur de ce risque. L'élément de mauvaise foi n'apparaît
donc pas requis.
Cette solution parait également s'imposer en cas d'usurpation d'un nom commercial par
un nom de domaine.
La jurisprudence française a admis, au lieu et place de la sanction d'annulation d'un code
TELETEL, sa transmission forcée au profit d'un titulaire de droits antérieurs. Sans perdre
de vue le fait qu'un nom de domaine ne constitue pas un droit sui generis, cette solution
peut être considérée comme applicable à un nom de domaine dont la réservation aurait
été faite en fraude des droits d'un tiers.
Ill.
Litige entre nom de domaine
Les litiges entre noms de domaine ne reposant pas sur un droit de propriété intellectuelle
antérieur trouveront leur solution par la mise en oeuvre des dispositions applicables à la
concurrence déloyale.
(o)
Quelles sanctions un tribunal peut-II ordonner contre le titulaire d'un nom de domaine qui porte atteinte à la marque ou au nom commercial d'un tiers, ou dont le
comportement vis-à -vis de celui-ci est illicite sur un autre point? Prière d'indiquer si
le tribunal a le pouvoir d'ordonner directement le transfert d'un tel nom de domaine,
en l'enlevant à la partie auteur de l'atteinte pour l'attribuer au détenteur de la marque/nom commercial (cf. 5.1 et 2)
Les sanctions ne peuvent être prononcées efficacement que sur le territoire français. L'organisation actuelle des différentes unités qui délivrent les autorisations d'accès au réseau
avec un nom de domaine ne permet sans doute pas d'imposer des mesures de radiation
qui seraient automatiquement exécutées.
Le projet de réglementation des nouveaux noms de domaine génériques de premier niveau fait obligation aux unités d'enregistrement de respecter les décisions des groupes
spéciaux ainsi que celles prises à l'issue de procédures d'arbitrage et de médiation de
l'OMPI.
Mais ceci ne modifie pas la situation ni pour les domaines génériques de premier niveau
existant ni pour les domaines nationaux.
La marque communautaire qui prévoit les mêmes dispositions que la loi française en ce
qui concerne la protection du titre ayant acquis une renommée au-delà du principe de
spécialité permet d'obtenir, en pareille hypothèse, cette sanction de portée infiniment plus
large que celle découlant de la marque nationale. Et ceci en application des principes de
la responsabilité civile.
98
Le nom commercial suivra, lui, le sort de la loi nationale.
L'efficacité des sanctions ne serait assurée que si les unités d'enregistrement de noms de
domaine s'engageaient contractuellement à respecter les décisions judiciaires ou arbitrales des autorités compétentes pour régler des conflits entre des noms de domaine, des
marques, des noms commerciaux.
Le Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle prévoit très précisément, pour les marques, les con-
ditions de la revendication d'un titre demandé en fraude des droits d'un tiers (article L
712-6 du Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle).
Quelles règles du droit international privé du pays ou de la région de votre groupe
sont utilisées pour déterminer le droit applicable à un litige concernant l'atteinte à
une marque ou à un nom commercial par un nom de domaine INTERNE T (cf. 6.1
et 2)?
L'atteinte à une marque ou à un nom commercial par un nom de domaine INTERNET relevant de la responsabilité délictuelle, c'est l'application du droit du lieu du délit qui devrait être, a priori, retenue.
Ainsi, le droit français devrait-il recevoir application quel que soit l'auteur de la violation
des droits (marque, nom commercial) quelle que soit la nationalité de l'auteur de la violation pour peu que le délit puisse être localisé sur le territoire français ou encore que la
victime soit française.
La contrefaçon de marque étant un délit, si l'affaire est portée au pénal, la loi pénale
française est applicable aux infractions commises sur le territoire français, c'est-àdire dès qu'un des éléments constitutifs a eu lieu sur le territoire (articles 113-1 et 113-2
du Code Pénal).
La loi française est également applicable aux délits commis par des français, hors du
territoire français, si les faits sont punis par la législation du pays où ils ont été
commis (article 113-6) ou encore, lorsque le délit a été commis par un français ou
par un étranger hors du territoire français lorsque la victime est de nationalité française au moment de l'infraction (articles 113-6 et 113-78 du Code Pénal).
Quelles règles de droit international privé s'appliquent afin de déterminer le tribunal
compétent pour traiter le litige précité (cf. 6.3)?
Les articles 14 et 15 du Code Civil qui permettent aux plaideurs français d'attraire un
étranger devant les juridictions françaises et aux plaideurs français ou étrangers d'y attraire un français, ont une portée générale.
On peut donc inclure leur application pour déterminer le tribunal compétent pour traiter un
litige concernant l'atteinte à une marque ou à un nom commercial par un nom de domaine
INTERNET.
La Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 apporte des dérogations à ce principe: elle a établi entre les états contractants la règle selon laquelle les personnes domi99
ciliées sur le territoire d'un état contractant sont attraites quelle que soit leur nationalité devant la juridiction de cet état.
Mais en matière de validité de marque, seules sont compétentes les juridictions de
l'état contractant sur le territoire duquel le dépôt ou l'enregistrement a été effectué
ou est réputé avoir été effectué aux termes d'une convention internationale.
En matière délictuelle ou quasi-délictuelle (en l'espèce, réparation d'une atteinte portée
aux droits d'un titulaire de marque ou de nom commercial), le litige est porté devant le
tribunal du lieu où te fait est dommageable (article 5-3).
Le Règlement CE n0 40-94 du Conseil du 20 décembre 1993 sur la marque communautaire se réfère à la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 en ce qui concerne la
compétence.
Néanmoins, l'article 93 de ce Règlement prévoit que les procédures résultant des actions
et demandes en matière de contrefaçon et de validité sont portées devant les tribunaux
de l'Etat membre sur le territoire duquel le défendeur a son domicile ou si celui-ci
n'est pas domicilié dans l'un des Etats membres, de t'Etat membre sur le territoire
duquel il a un établissement.
Si le défendeur n'a, ni son domicile, ni un établissement sur le territoire d'un Etat membre,
ces procédures sont portées devant les tribunaux de l'Etat membre sur le territoire duquel le demandeur a son domicile ou si ce dernier n'est pas domicilié dans un Etat
membre, de l'Etat membre sur le territoire duquel il a un établissement.
Si ni le défendeur, ni le demandeur ne sont ainsi domiciliés ou non à un tel établissement,
ces procédures sont portées devant les tribunaux de l'Etat espagnol.
L'alinéa 5 de l'article 93 prévoit que les procédures en contrefaçon d'une marque communautaire peuvent être également portées devant les tribunaux de l'Etat membre sur le
territoire duquel le fait de contrefaçon a été commis (mais dans ce cas, ce tribunal
sera compétent uniquement pour statuer sur les faits de contrefaçon commis sur le territoire de l'Etat membre dans lequel est situé ce tribunal).
Sum mary
(a)
The allocation of domain names based on the principle first come, first served should
now be placed in a sectorial context, rather than the earlier categorial context.
The creation of new first-level generic domains not attached to a country, to which mediation and arbitration procedures would apply, the implementation of which would have been
accepted by the holder of a prior right, leading to decisions, the scope of which would be
limited to recording or rejection of a domain name, binding the recording units but not mo-
difying the types of judicial competence relative to judging intellectual property rights,
would constitute an improvement in the situation of holders of intellectual property rights
and of applicants for domain names.
100
On the other hand, the fact that no contemplation is being given at present to having said
new rules apply to the first-level domain COM considerably limits the interest thereof.
Moreover, the rule first come first served, which is not questioned in the present work, will
continue to prevent coexistence of second-level domain names beyond what is required
by the legal rules applicable to distinctive styles.
That is why one recommends focusing the thinking process on a new architecture of all
first-level generic domains, which could be organized in the fashion of professional listings
and directories (yellow pages).
The creation of domains specific to trademarks (.TM) does not offer any solution to the
problems resulting from the first come first served rule, and does not much help in consulting the INTERNET directories.
As to the solution entailing creation, for known trademarks, of a special status
(intervention of special groups responsible for administrative appeals) and objective criteria for measuring and judging the "reputation" of a prior right, that would create a new situation not only in relationships between trademarks (commercial names) and domain
names, but also between trademarks (commercial names) and trademarks (commercial
names).
In the trademark domain, there are already uncertainties connected with multiple qualifications: very well-known trademarks, highly-reputed trademarks, famous trademarks. There would be even greater if not total confusion with the introduction of some new notions:
internationally-known trademarks, globally-known trademarks, etc.
Even if it is opportune to seek homogeneous definitions at international level and criteria
for judging reputation, such studies should not be included in an exercise reserved solely
for INTERNET, studies carried out at a forced march pace.
Nor does it appear desirable to entrust experts, even if they specialize in industrial property, with the task of settling conflicts between parallel types of reputation for which there
is no legal standard at present.
An effort has been made in France to eliminate, at the stage of the application itself,
reservations of an improper nature.
The only names accepted as domain names are signs that are already protected to the
applicant's benefit either as trademarks or as company designations.
Such an orientation appears to be very positive.
On the other hand, the system now in place does not constitute any progress with respect to architecture in zones able to organize coexistences perfectly accepted in connection with trademarks for commercial names.
101
The management entity of the INTERNET FR domain is not equipped with any examina-
tian powers. Such a solution is not a weak point, and on the contrary, it must be approved since it certainly does not appear desirable to recognize, in connection with reserving domain names, prerogatives for public or private entities, and a fortiori more prerogatives than are enjoyed, in the trademark field, by the National Intellectual Property Offices.
lt is not unusual for one and the same sign protected as a trademark to be both protected
as a trademark and registered as a domain name.
In France, such a case arises frequently since advance registration as a trademark (the
filing) is required when the sign is not a business name, a raison social, or a commercial
name.
The element of the domain name that can be protected as a trademark is the arbitrary part of the name identifying the allocatee of the site, and not the name of the firstlevel domain (INT, COM, FR, etc.), which normally should not appear in the sign filed as a
trademark.
Trademark protection implies that the distinctive sign in question has been the object
of a trademark application or registration.
The rules relative to consumer protection, to deceit, to public order and to free
competition apply to all signs used in business life, and consequently to domain
names.
Even though a domain name does not benefit from protection sui generis, it should be
permissible, in case of fraud or of a fault vis-à-vis a third party (misuse of right), for the
holder of such a name to be able to oppose later adoption thereof as a trademark on the
basis of unfair competition.
Under French law, to be exploited, a trademark must be applied to products that are manufactured or sold in order to distinguish them from products of other origins. To be sure,
there is no requirement for the trademark to be placed on each product, but it is necessary
for the product to be designated in the public's eyes, to be distributed under that trademark.
A domain name in itself cannot be tantamount, in French law, to use of any product or
service trademark whatsoever.
The use, as a domain name at national level or not attached to a country, of a sign that is
protected as a trademark is not tantamount, in itself, to use of the trademark in France.
102
If the products are displayed on the site, even not bearing the trademark, but if they are
available and are the object of business transactions on a country's territory, one may
consider such a form of use as sufficient for maintaining the trademark in that country.
In France, pursuant to Articles L 713-2 and L 713-3 of the Intellectual Property Code, reproduction, imitation, use or unauthorized reproduction of the protected sign constitutes
infringement.
In case of conflict between the prior distinctive sign and a TELETEL code, the French
courts have developed precedents that are now established, based on the application of
the legal rules governing distinctive signs and on the primacy of said rules over administrative regulation, the purpose of which does not exceed mere management of a file
of electronic addresses.
Such is the case when the signs are identical or lend themselves to confusion, and when
the activities covered by the domain name conflict with the products or services protected
by the prior trademark.
Finally, it is necessary for the domain name and the prior trademark to relate to one and
the same territory. Opening a site in a first-level domain, whether generic or national, may
be considered as an implied approach to the clientele in which it is located.
Hence there is a potential conflict between a domain name and a right to a prior distinctive
sign. In said connection, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Bordeaux issued a decision
on July 22, 1996, sanctioning the French holder of a generic site .COM on the basis
of a prior French trademark belonging to a French company.
In French law, a well-known trademark or a trademark with reputation enjoys protection
going beyond the framework of the speciality.
Pursuant to Article L 713-5 of the Intellectual Property Code, the use of a sign that is identical with or similar to the one constituting the well-known trademark or the trademark with
reputation makes its author civilly liable, even if said use bears on products or services
differing from those protected by the well-known trademark or the trademark with reputation as long as said use is of such nature as to cause prejudice to the owner of the trademark or said use constitutes unjustified exploitation of the trademark's reputation or fame.
Such use is sanctioned not by trademark law, but rather by the general provisions relative
to public liability.
Warnings with respect to limited availability of products or services do not appear, in
themselves, to be sufficient to ward off action by a priority holder. The fact is that the domain name does not identify the products presented as unavailable. lt is the use of the
domain name itself that infringes on the prior right.
The holder of a trademark is entitled to propose use of the protected sign, whatever the
form of such use may be, when there is a risk of confusion in the public mind.
103
A trademark registered for communication services should allow the rejection of a registration or the withdrawal of a domain name that is identical with or similar to the protected
sign if there is, in fact, a risk of confusion between the activities of the trademark holder
and those carried on by the allocatee of the domain name.
U)
The use of a domain name is not sufficient to constitute a commercial name right to
a sign that is not, moreover, used as such.
On the other hand, such a form of use could be considered as able to assure creation or
maintenance of a right to a commercial name insofar as the conditions of such use
give it a function going beyond that of a simple electronic address.
(k)
The traditional reasons for invalidity of a commercial name should apply to domain names
consisting of commercial names.
(I)
The facts that the right to the commercial name can result from mere use and that the
conditions regarding its protection and the definition of violations differ very markedly from
one country to another lead to the conclusion that it would be unrealistic to consider that
the adoption as a domain name of a sign benefiting from protection in a country as a
commercial name necessarily violates said right because of that fact alone.
The violation implies that the domain name is used in the geographical area in which the
commercial name is protected, in a business sector competing with the one covered by
the commercial name.
The adoption and use of a national or generic first-level domain name constitute an approach to the clientele without any territorial limitation which may be opposed by the holder of a prior right (commercial name) under conditions of competition.
Warnings concerning limited availability of the products or services do not appear
to be sufficient in themselves to obviate a risk of confusion.
The domain name, consisting of a simple declaration, reveals the identity of an economic
player. lt may conflict, locally, going beyond the specialty principle, with a prior trademark or else with a commercial name.
Principles of public liability then make it possible to settle such a conflict.
I.
Conflict between an initial trademark and a domain name
Use on French territory of a domain name consisting of elements borrowed from the prior
trademark of a third party that has acquired a reputation can also be sanctioned.
104
The point is to protect a reputation.
The benefit of such a reputation, diverted by a simple reservation formality, unquestionably constitutes a lack of fairness. Such diversion results from the prejudice caused in
such a way to the trademark holder. lt is also established when the adoption of the domain
name cannot be justified by any logic proper to its holder, the only possible explanation
then appearing to be the desire to misappropriate the reputation of the prior trademark.
lt appears that when nothing justifies, in view of the holder, the choice of the domain
name, its simple reservation constitutes an aggression that must be sanctioned.
On the other hand, if the choice of the domain name results from an established logic, use thereof would then deserve sanction only when it prejudices the holder of
the prior trademark. Such prejudice results from the risk of misappropriating the prior
trademark.
The intentional element will be established when the reserving party cannot justify
its choice, whereas it will not necessarily be established on the other assumption.
Il.
Disputes and conflict between a domain name and a prior commercial name
Article L 711-4 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that a trademark can infringe on
a prior commercial name, known on the territory as a whole, if there is a risk of confusion
between the signs.
On said assumption, the risk of confusion generates a dilution of the reputation of the
commercial name acquired on the entire territory and hence unquestionable.
Said dilution or said risk of dilution of the reputation may also be accompanied by a diver-
sion of clientele that, by definition, causes prejudice to the holder of the commercial
name.
The proof of the existence of the risk of confusion for the entire territory is therefore
enough to make the author of said risk liable. Hence the element of bad faith does not
appear to be required.
Said solution also appears necessary in case of usurpation of a commercial name by a
domain name.
Ill.
Conflict between domain names
The conflicts between domain names not based on a prior intellectual property right will be
solved by following the provisions applicable to unfair competition.
(o)
The current organization of the various units issuing authorizations for access to the network with a domain name no doubt does not allow the imposition of striking-off measures
that would be carried out automatically.
105
The draft regulation governing the new first-level generic domain names requires the registration units to respect the decisions of the special groups as well as those made at the
end of arbitration proceedings and of World Intellectual Property Organization mediation.
But such does not modify the situation, either for the existing first-level generic domains or
for the national domains.
Effectiveness of sanctions would be guaranteed only if the units registering domain names
undertook contractually to respect the court or arbitration decisions handed down by the
competent authorities to settle conflicts between the domain names, trademarks and
commercial names.
The Intellectual Property Code provides in a very precise way for trademarks, the conditions relating to a fraudulently filed claim to a title to the rights of a third party (Article L
712-6 of the Intellectual Property Code).
Since an attack on a trademark or on a commercial name by an INTERNET domain name
falls within the field of liability for damage due to misfeasance or non-feasance, it is the
law of the place of the offence that should, a priori, be applied.
French law is also applicable to offences committed by French persons, outside
French territory, if the actions are punished by the legislation of the country in
which they have been committed (Article 113-6), or else when the offence has been
committed by a French person or a foreigner outside French territory when the victim is of French nationality at the time of the infraction (Articles 113-6 and 113-78 of
the Penal Code).
Articles 14 and 15 of the Civil Code, which enable French plaintiffs to summon a foreigner to appear before the French courts and French or foreign plaintiffs to summon a
French person to so appear, are of general application.
The September 27, 1968 Convention of Brussels, makes some exceptions to said principle: it established the rule among the contracting States according to which persons
domiciled on the territory of a contracting State are brought before the jurisdiction
of said State whatever their nationality may be.
With respect to aquilian responsibility or quasi-aquilian responsibility (in the event,
compensation for an attack made on the rights of a holder of a trademark or of a commer-
cial name), the dispute is taken to the court of the place where the action is harmful
(Article 5, § 3).
EC Regulation No. 40-94 approved by the Council on December 20, 1993, concerning
the community trademark refers to the September 27, 1968 Convention of Brussels, with
respect to competence.
Nevertheless, Article 93 of said Regulation provides that proceedings resulting from ac-
tions and applications in connection with infringement and validity are taken to the
106
courts of the Member State on the territory of which the defendant has its domicile,
or if it is not domiciled in one of the Member States, of the Member State on the territory of which it has an establishment.
If the defendant has neither a domicile nor an establishment on the territory of a Member
State, said proceedings are taken to the courts of the Member State on the territory of
which the plaintiff has its domicile, or if the latter is not domiciled in a Member State, of
the Member State on the territory of which it has an establishment.
If neither the defendant nor the plaintiff is domiciled in such a way or does not have such
an establishment, said proceedings are taken to the courts of the Spanish State.
Paragraph 5 of Article 93 provides that proceedings for infringement of a community tra-
demark may also be taken to the courts of a Member State on the territory of which
the act of infringement was committed (but in that case, said court will hold jurisdiction
solely to rule on the infringement facts committed on the territory of the Member State in
which said court is located).
Zusammenfassung
(a)
Die auf dem Grundsatz ((wer zuerst kommt, malt zuerst» beruhende Vergabe von Domänennamen müsste sektorbezogen und nicht wie bisher kategoriebezogen gesehen werden.
Die Schaffung von neuen, landesungebundenen generischen Domänen erster Ebene, für
die Vermittlungs- und Schiedsverfahren gelten würden, deren Einleitung vom Inhaber eines älteren Rechts akzeptiert wurde und zu Entscheidungen führt, deren Tragweite sich
auf die Eintragung oder Abweisung eines Domänennamens beschränken würde - Entscheidungen, die für die Eintragungsstellen zwar verbindlich wären, jedoch hinsichtlich der
Beurteilung der geistigen Eigentumsrechte keine Änderung der gerichtlichen Zuständigkeit
herbeiführen würden - würde die Lage der Inhaber von geistigen Eigentumsrechten und
der Domänennamen beantragenden Personen verbessern.
Die Tatsache, dass jedoch vorerst nicht vorgesehen ist, dass diese neuen Regeln für die
zur ersten Ebene gehörige COM-Domäne gelten, schränkt ihr Interesse erheblich ein.
Der Grundsatz <(wer zuerst kommt, malt zuerst», der bei den laufenden Arbeiten nicht in
Frage gestellt wird, wird jedoch das Nebeneinanderbestehen von Domänennamen zweiter
Ebene über die Anforderungen der für Kennzeichen geltenden Rechtsvorschriften hinaus
weiterhin verhindern.
Aus diesem Grund wird empfohlen, die Überlegungen auf eine neue Gliederung aller generischen Domänen erster Ebene auszurichten, die wie Branchenverzeichnisse (gelbe
Seiten) aufgebaut sein könnten.
107
Die Schaffung von markenspezifischen Domänen (.TM) ist keine Lösung für die Probleme,
die der Grundsatz «wer zuerst kommt, malt zuerst» aufwirft, und erleichtert die Konsuttation der INTERNET-Verzeichnisse kaum.
Die Lösung, für bekannte Marken ein eigenes System zu schaffen (Einschaltung von
Sondergruppen, die für die verwaltungsrechtlichen Beschwerdeverfahren zuständig sind)
und objektive Kriterien für die Messung und Beurteilung des «Bekanntheitsgrades» eines
älteren Rechts festzulegen, würde eine neue Lage entstehen lassen, und zwar nicht nur
bei den Beziehungen zwischen Marken (Handelsnamen) und Domänennamen, sondern
auch zwischen Marken (Handelsnamen) und Marken (Handelsnamen).
Im Bereich der Marken herrscht bereits Ungewissheit aufgrund der zahlreichen Qualifizierungen: allgemein bekannte Marken, berühmte Marken, bekannte Marken. Führt man
neue Begriffe wie international bekannte Marken, weltweit bekannte Marken, usw. ein,
würde dadurch noch mehr, wenn nicht völlige Verwirrung gestiftet werden.
Es ist zwar angebracht, einheitliche Definitionen auf internationaler Ebene und Kriterien
für die Beurteilung des Bekanntheitsgrades festzulegen, derartige Studien sollten jedoch
bei ausschliesslich INTERNET vorbehaltenen Arbeiten, die überdies im Eiltempo durchgeführt werden, keinen Platz haben.
Auch dürfte es nicht wünschenswert sein, es Fachleuten, selbst wenn sie auf das gewerbliche Eigentumsrecht spezialisiert sind, zu überlassen, Konflikte zwischen parallelen Bekanntheitsgraden zu regeln, für die es bis heute keine rechtlichen Vorschriften gibt.
In Frankreich wurden in dem Bestreben, Reservierungen rechtsmissbräuchlichen
Charakters bereits in der Antragsphase zu eliminieren, Veranlassungen getroffen.
Als Domänennamen sind ausschliesslich Zeichen zulässig, die zugunsten des Antragstellers bereits entweder als Marken oder als Unternehmensbezeichnungen geschützt
sind.
Diese Ausrichtung ist als positiv zu beurteilen.
Das bestehende System weist jedoch keinerlei Fortschritt auf dem Gebiet des Aufbaus der Zonen auf, die das bei Marken oder handelsüblichen Bezeichnungen einwandfrei zulässige Nebeneinanderbestehen organisieren könnten.
Das für das Management der FR-Domäne von INTERNET zuständige Organ hat keinerlei
Prüfungsbefugnis. Diese Lösung darf nicht als schwacher Punkt gesehen, sondern
muss vielmehr befürwortet werden, denn es kann nicht wünschenswert sein, bei der
Reservierung von Domänennamen öffentlichen oder privaten Stellen Vorrechte und erst
recht nicht mehr Vorrechte zuzuerkennen, als sie auf dem Gebiet der Marken die Landesorganisationen für geistiges Eigentum besitzen.
(b)
Nicht selten ist ein markengeschütztes Zeichen sowohl als Marke geschützt, als auch als
Domänenname eingetragen.
108
Derartige Fälle sind in Frankreich sehr häufig, denn eine vorherige Eintragung als Marke
(Anmeldung) wird gefordert, wenn es sich bei dem Zeichen nicht um eine Firmenbezeichnung, eine Firma oder um einen Handeisnamen handelt.
Der als Marke schutzfähige Bestandteil des Domänennamens ist der willkürliche
Teil des Namens, mit dem der Inhaber der Site identifiziert wird und nicht der Domänenname erster Ebene (INT, COM, FR, ...), der normalerweise nicht in dem als Marke angemeldeten Zeichen aufscheinen dürfte.
Ein Schutz als Marke setzt voraus, dass das gegenständliche Kennzeichen als Marke
angemeldet oder eingetragen wurde.
Die in bezug auf Konsumentenschutz, Irreführung, öffentliche Ordnung und Wettbewerbsfreiheit massgeblichen Vorschriften gelten für alle im Geschäftsleben verwendeten Zeichen, also auch für Domänennamen.
Obwohl für einen Domänennamen kein Schutz su! generis besteht, müsste es zulässig
sein, dass sich der Inhaber eines solchen Namens im Falle von Betrug oder Fremdverschulden (Rechtsmissbrauch) unter Berufung auf unlauteren Wettbewerb dem Wunsch
widersetzt, diesen Namen nachher als Marke zu wählen.
Nach französischem Recht wird eine Marke verwertet, wenn sie auf hergestellten oder
verkauften Produkten angebracht wird, um sie von Produkten anderer Herkunft zu unterscheiden. Es wird zwar nicht verlangt, dass die Marke auf jedem Produkt angebracht wird,
das Produkt muss jedoch für die Allgemeinheit so bezeichnet und unter dieser Marke
vermarktet werden.
Ein Domänenname kann nach französischem Recht an sich nicht als Gebrauch einer
Marke von irgendwelchen Produkten oder Dienstleistungen gelten.
Der Gebrauch eines als Marke geschützten Zeichens als Domänenname nationaler oder
landesungebundener Ebene gilt als solcher nicht als Gebrauch der Marke in Frankreich.
Wenn Produkte in der Site präsentiert werden, selbst wenn sie nicht mit der Marke versehen, jedoch verfügbar sind und damit in einem Land Handelsgeschäfte abgewickelt werden, kann man davon ausgehen, dass diese Art des Gebrauchs ausreicht, um die Marke
in diesem Land aufrechtzuerhalten.
In Frankreich begründet die unbefugte Nachahmung, Verwendung oder Wiedergabe eines
geschützten Zeichens nach Artikel L 713-2 und L 713-3 des Geistigen Eigentumsrechts
(Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle - CPI) eine Markenverletzung.
Bei Konflikten zwischen einem älteren Kennzeichen und einem TELETEL-Code hat sich
bei den französischen Gerichten heute eine Rechtsprechung durchgesetzt, die auf der
109
Anwendung der für Kennzeichen geltenden Rechtsvorschriften und auf dem Vorrang die-
ser Vorschriften gegenüber administrativen Regelungen beruht, deren Gegenstand
über das blosse Management einer elektronischen Adressendatei nicht hinausgeht.
Dies trifft zu, wenn die Zeichen identisch oder zum Verwechseln ähnlich sind und wenn
die durch den Domänennamen gedeckten Aktivitäten mit den durch die ältere Marke geschützten Produkten oder Dienstleistungen in Konflikt geraten.
Schliesslich müssen Domänenname und ältere Marke das gleiche Territorium betreffen.
Die Eröffnung einer Site in einer generischen oder auch nationalen Domäne erster Ebene
kann als stillschweigendes Herantreten an die Kunden betrachtet werden, egal wo
sie sich befinden.
Zwischen einem Domänennamen und einem Recht an einem älteren Kennzeichen besteht daher eine potentielle Konfliktgefahr. In diesem Sinn hat das Landgericht von Bordeaux am 22. Juli 1996 entschieden, als es den französischen Inhaber einer genen-
schen Site .COM unter Zugrundelegung einer im Besitz einer französischen Firma
stehenden älteren französischen Marke bestrafte.
Nach französischem Recht geniesst eine allgemein bekannte oder berühmte Marke einen
Schutz, der über den Rahmen des Fachgebietes hinausgeht.
Nach Artikel L 713-5 CPI, ist der Verwender eines Zeichens, das mit demjenigen der allgemein bekannten oder berühmten Marke identisch oder ihm ähnlich ist, zivilrechtlich
haftbar, auch wenn dieses Zeichen für Produkte oder Dienstleistungen verwendet wird,
die sich von den durch die allgemein bekannte bzw. berühmte Marke geschützten Produkten bzw. Dienstleistungen unterscheiden, sofern diese Verwendung dem Eigentümer
der Marke Schaden verursachen könnte oder eine ungerechtfertigte Verwertung des Bekanntheitsgrades oder Rufes der Marke darstellt. Eine derartige Verwendung wird nicht
nach den markenrechtlichen Bestimmungen, sondern nach den allgemeinen Vorschriften
über die Haftpflicht geahndet.
(h)
Hinweise auf eine beschränkte Verfügbarkeit der Produkte oder Dienstleistungen dürften
an sich nicht ausreichen, um die Klage des Inhabers eines älteren Rechts abzuwehren.
Durch den Domänennamen werden die präsentierten Produkte nämlich nicht als unver-
fügbar identifiziert. Das ältere Recht wird vielmehr durch den Gebrauch des Domänennamens selbst beeinträchtigt.
(j)
Der Inhaber einer Marke ist berechtigt, sich dem Gebrauch des geschützten Zeichens,
welche Formen dieser Gebrauch auch immer annimmt, zu widersetzen, wenn für die Allgemeinheit eine Verwechslungsgefahr besteht.
Eine für Kommunikationsleistungen angemeldete Marke müsste eine Verweigerung der
Eintragung bzw. den Entzug des mit dem geschützten Zeichen identischen bzw. ihm ähnlichen Domänennamens ermöglichen, wenn zwischen der Tätigkeit des Inhabers der Marke und der Tätigkeit des Inhabers des Domänennamens tatsächlich eine Verwechslungsgefahr besteht.
110
(J)
Die Verwendung eines Domänennamens reicht nicht aus, um ein Recht auf einen
Handelsnamen an einem Zeichen zu begründen, das anderweitig nicht als solches
verwendet wird.
Es könnte jedoch davon ausgegangen werden, dass eine solche Verwendungsform in-
soweit die Entstehung oder Aufrechterhaltung eines Rechts an einem Handelsnamen begründet, als ihm durch die Bedingungen dieser Verwendung eine Funktion
verliehen wird, die über die Funktion einer blossen elektronischen Adresse hinausgeht
(k)
Die Gründe, die für die Ungültigkeit eines Handeisnamens herkömmlicherweise massgeblich sind, müssten auch für Domänennamen gelten, die aus Handelsnamen bestehen.
(I)
Aufgrund der Tatsache, dass das Recht auf einen Handelsnamen aus dem blossen Gebrauch entstehen kann und dass die Schutzbedingungen sowie die Definition der Beeinträchtigungen länderweise sehr unterschiedlich sind, wäre es nicht realistisch, zu behaupten, die blosse Wahl eines Zeichens, das in einem Land als Handeisname geschützt
ist, als Domänenname hätte zwangsläufig eine Beeinträchtigung dieses Rechts zur Folge.
Voraussetzung für eine Beeinträchtigung ist, dass der Domänenname in dem geographischen Gebiet verwendet wird, in dem der Handelsname geschützt ist, und zwar in einem
Tätigkeitsbereich, der mit demjenigen im Wettbewerb steht, der durch den Handelsnamen
gedeckt ist.
Die Wahl und Verwendung eines nationalen oder generischen Domänennamens erster
Ebene begründet ein territorial uneingeschränktes Herantreten an die Kundschaft, dem
sich der Inhaber eines älteren Rechts (Handelsname) beim Bestehen von Wettbewerbsverhältnissen widersetzen kann.
Hinweise auf eine beschränkte Verfügbarkeit der Produkte oder Dienstleistungen
dürften an sich nicht ausreichen, um eine Verwechslungsgefahr auszuschalten.
Der durch eine einfache Erklärung begründete Domänenname zeigt die Identität eines
Marktteilnehmers auf. Über den Grundsatz des Fachgebietes hinaus kann er lokal mit
einer älteren Marke oder mit einem Handelsnamen in Konflikt geraten.
Ein solcher Konflikt kann unter Heranziehen der für die Haftpflicht geltenden
Grundsätze geregelt werden.
111
I.
Streitfall zwischen einer Erstmarke und einem Domänennamen
Auf diese Weise kann ein auf dem französischen Staatsgebiet erfolgender Gebrauch eines Domänennamens bestraft werden, der aus Bestandteilen einer älteren Marke eines
Dritten besteht, die einen gewissen Ruf geniesst.
Es geht darum, einen Ruf zu schützen.
Die Nutzbarmachung dieses Rufes, den man sich durch eine blosse Reservierungsforma-
lität aneignet, verstösst eindeutig gegen Treu und Glauben. Diese Aneignung ergibt
sich aus dem Schaden, der dadurch dem Inhaber der Marke entsteht. Sie ist auch dann
nachweisbar, wenn die Wahl des Domänennamens durch keine dem Inhaber eigene Logik gerechtfertigt werden kann und die einzige mögliche Erklärung somit das Bestreben
ist, sich den Ruf der älteren Marke anzueignen.
Wenn die Wahl des Domänennamens aus der Sicht des Inhabers durch nichts gerechtfertigt werden kann, begründet seine Reservierung einen zu bestrafenden Angriff.
Ergibt sich die Wahl eines Domänennamens jedoch aus einer nachweisbaren Logik,
wäre nur die Verwendung zu bestrafen, wenn sie dem Inhaber der älteren Marke
Schaden zufügt. Dieser Schaden ergibt sich aus der Gefahr einer Aneignung des Bekanntheitsgrades der älteren Marke.
Der Umstand der Vorsätzlichkeit ist erwiesen, wenn der Reservierende seine Wahl
nicht rechtfertigen kann, während er andernfalls nicht unbedingt erwiesen ist.
Il.
Streitfall zwischen einem Domänennamen und einem älteren Handelsnamen
Nach Artikel L 711-4 CPI kann eine Marke einen im ganzen Staatsgebiet bekannten älteren Handelsnamen beeinträchtigen, wenn zwischen den Zeichen eine Verwechslungsgefahr besteht.
Die Verwechslungsgefahr bewirkt in diesem Fall eine Verwässerung des im ganzen
Staatsgebiet erworbenen Rufes des Handelsnamens und ist daher unbestreitbar.
Diese Verwässerung des Rufes bzw. diese Gefahr einer Verwässerung kann auch mit
einer Abwerbung der Kundschaft einhergehen, die dem Inhaber des Handelsnamens
zwangsläufig Schaden verursacht.
Das nachweisliche Bestehen einer Verwechslungsgefahr im gesamten Staatsgebiet reicht
daher aus, um den Verursacher dieser Gefahr haftbar zu machen. Der Umstand der bösen Absicht muss also offenbar nicht gegeben sein.
Diese Lösung dürfte auch im Falle einer unrechtmässigen Aneignung eines Handelsnamens durch einen Domänennamen gelten.
112
Ill.
Streitfall zwischen Domänennamen
Streitfälle zwischen Domänennamen, die nicht auf einem älteren geistigen Eigentumsrecht beruhen, sind nach den für unlauteren Wettbewerb geltenden Vorschriften zu entscheiden.
Die derzeitige Organisation der verschiedenen Stellen, die Bewilligungen für einen Netzzugang mittels eines Domänennamens erteilen, gestattet es zweifellos nicht, Löschungsmassnahmen vorzuschreiben, die automatisch durchgeführt werden.
Nach dem Entwurf der für neue generische Domänennamen erster Ebene ausgearbeiteten Vorschriften sind die Eintragungsstellen verpflichtet, sich an die Entscheidungen der
Sondergruppen sowie an die nach Schieds- und Vermittlungsverfahren der WIPO
(Weltorganisation für Geistiges Eigentum) getroffenen Entscheidungen zu hatten.
Die Lage ändert sich dadurch jedoch weder für die generischen Domänen erster Ebene
noch für die nationalen Domänen.
Eine Wirksamkeit der Strafmassnahmen wäre nur dann gewährleistet, wenn sich die Eintragungsstellen für Domänennamen vertraglich verpflichteten, sich an die Gerichtsurteile
oder Schiedssprüche der Behörden zu halten, die für die Regelung von Konflikten zwischen Domänennamen, Marken und Handelsnamen zuständig sind.
Was die Marken betrifft, sind die Bedingungen für die Geltendmachung eines in betrügenscher Verletzung der Rechte Dritter beantragten Titels in Artikel L 712-6 CPI ganz
genau festgelegt.
Da die Beeinträchtigung einer Marke oder eines Handelsnamens durch einen INTERNETDomänennamen unter die Haftung aus unerlaubter Handlung fällt, ist grundsätzlich von
einer Anwendung des Rechts auszugehen, das am Ort gültig ist, an dem die unerlaubte Handlung begangen wurde.
Das französische Recht ist auch auf Vergehen anwendbar, die französische Staats-
bürger im Ausland begangen haben, wenn die entsprechende Handlung in dem
Land, in dem sie begangen wurde, strafbar ist (Artikel 113-6) oder wenn das Vergehen von einem Franzosen oder einem Ausländer ausserhalb von Frankreich begangen wurde und der Geschädigte zum Zeitpunkt der Zuwiderhandlung französischer
Staatsbürger ist (Artikel 113-6 und 113-78 des französischen Strafgesetzbuches).
Die Artikel 14 und 15 des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches (Code Civil), nach denen französische Prozessführer berechtigt sind, einen Ausländer vor einem französischen Gericht zu
verklagen, bzw. französische oder ausländische Prozessführer einen Franzosen vor einem solchen Gericht verklagen können, sind allgemeingültig.
Dieser Grundsatz wurde durch das Brüsseler Übereinkommen vom 27. September 1968
u.a. insoweit abbedungen, als zwischen den Vertragsstaaten festgelegt wurde, dass die
113
in einem Vertragsstaat ansässigen Personen, unabhängig von ihrer Staatsangehörigkeit, vor dem Gericht dieses Staates zu verklagen sind.
Bei Haftungen aus unerlaubter Handlung oder Quasidelikten (hier Ersatz für die Beeinträchtigung der Rechte eines Inhabers einer Marke oder eines Handeisnamens) ist das
Gericht des Ortes anzurufen, an dem die Handlung Schaden verursacht (Artikel 5 §
3).
Die EG-Verordnung Nr. 40-94 vom 20. Dezember 1993 über gemeinschaftliche Marken
nimmt hinsichtlich der Zuständigkeit auf das Brüsseler Übereinkommen vom 27. September 1968 Bezug.
Nach Artikel 93 dieser Verordnung sind jedoch Verfahren, die sich aus Klagen oder Anträgen ergeben, die Fälschungen oder die Gültigkeit betreffen, bei den Gerichten des
Mitgliedstaates einzuleiten, in dem der Beklagte ansässig ist, oder - wenn er in keinem Mitgliedstaat ansässig ist - bei den Gerichten des Mitgliedstaates, in dem er
eine Niederlassung hat.
Ist der Beklagte in keinem Mitgliedstaat ansässig und hat er auch keine Niederlassung in
einem Mitgliedstaat, sind diese Verfahren bei den Gerichten des Mitgliedstaates einzuleiten, in dem der Kläger ansässig ist, oder - wenn dieser in keinem Mitgliedstaat ansässig ist - bei den Gerichten des Mitgliedstaates, in dem er eine Niederlassung hat.
Sind weder der Beklagte noch der Kläger in einem Mitgliedstaat ansässig und haben sie
auch keine Niederlassung in einem Mitgliedstaat, sind die Verfahren bei den Gerichten
von Spanien einzuleiten.
Nach Artikel 93, Abs. 5 können Verfahren wegen Fälschung einer gemeinschaftlichen
Marke auch bei den Gerichten des Mitgliedstaates eingeleitet werden, in dem die Fälschung begangen wurde (in diesem Fall ist dieses Gericht jedoch nur für eine Entscheidung über die Fälschungshandlungen zuständig, die in dem Mitgliedstaat begangen wurden, in dem sich das Gericht befindet).
114
Germany
Allemagne
Deutschland
Bericht Q 143
für die Deutsche Landesgruppe
von Annette KUR und Torsten BETTINGER
Internet Domain Namen, Marken und Handelsnamen
Einleitung
a)
Allgemeine Bemerkungen
Nationaler Bereich
Domainnamen, die unter dem ISO 3166-country code ".de" (für Deutschland) eingetragen sind, werden von dem beim Rechenzentrum der Universität Karlsruhe
eingerichteten Network Information Center (DE-NIC) verwaltet. Träger der Einrichtung ist IV-DENIC, eine Genossenschaft, deren Mitglieder die wichtigsten ServiceProvider sind. Anträge auf Eintragung von Domainnamen werden nicht mehr bei
DE-NIC, sondern bei den einzelnen Service-Providern oder bei der Gesellschaft Intra-Net GmbH gestellt, die auch das Inkasso der Gebühren vornimmt.
-
Bei der Beantragung von Domainnamen muss der Anmelder versichern, dass er
nach seiner Kenntnis keine fremden Namens- oder Kennzeichenrechte verletzt. Es
wird jedoch keine Prüfung auf mögliche Kollisionen durchgeführt. Auch Einspruchsverfahren o.ä. sind nicht vorgesehen. Als Reaktion auf Missbräuche hat DE-NIC jedoch im Februar 1997 die Möglichkeit abgeschaffl, Domainnamen, die nicht zur
unmittelbaren Nutzung bestimmt sind, zugunsten des Antragstellers zu reservieren.
Ebenso wie in anderen Ländern hat es in Deutschland zahlreiche Konflikte zwischen Kennzeichen- bzw. Namensrechten und Domainnamen gegeben. Die meisten davon dürften aussergerichtlich geregelt worden sein. Inwieweit dabei in grösserem Umfang von den Kennzeicheninhabern "Lösegelder" für die Freigabe ihrer
Marken gezahlt worden sind, lässt sich nicht feststellen. Soweit sich Markeninhaber
gerichtlich gegen die Eintragung und Benutzung ihrer Kennzeichen zur Wehr gesetzt haben, sind die Verfahren - soweit ersichtlich - ganz überwiegend zu ihren
Gunsten entschieden worden.
Von seiten der Markeninhaber wird z.T. die Forderung erhoben, strengere Voraussetzungen für die Eintragung von Domainnamen vorzusehen, d. h., eine Art von
Vorprüfung durchzuführen oder die Möglichkeit zu gewähren, Widerspruch einzulegen. Grössere Änderungen des nationalen Systems sind jedoch derzeit nicht zu
erwarten.
115
Internationaler Bereich
Der Bericht des IAHC vom 4. Februar 1997 und die daran anschliessenden Bemühungen um die Schaffung neuer Grundlagen für die Domainnamen-Vergabe auf
-
internationaler Ebene sind in Deutschland mit Aufmerksamkeit, aber auch mit
Skepsis aufgenommen worden. Zum einen wird anerkannt, dass mit der Schaffung
einer grösseren Anzahl internationaler (generischer) Top-Level-Domains ein Beitrag zur Entlastung der derzeit völlig überfüllten Top-Level-Domain .com geleistet
werden kann. Auf der anderen Seite wird befürchtet, dass die Schaffung neuer
Top-Level-Domains die Möglichkeiten zur Eintragung fremder Marken und sonstiger Kennzeichen vervielfachen und dadurch die Piraterie-Probleme noch verschärfen könnte. Der Vorschlag, Konflikte von internationalem Zuschnitt zwischen
Domainnamen und sonstigen Rechten im Wege des Challenge Panel-Verfahrens
zu lösen, wird prinzipiell begrüsst; es bleibt jedoch abzuwarten, ob die Challenge
Panels den in sie gesetzten Erwartungen tatsächlich gerecht werden können. Dies
hängt von einer Reihe von Faktoren ab - u.a. von der Akzeptanz, die die Challenge
Panels bei den Konfliktparteien selbst geniessen -, die sich derzeit (Sommer 1997)
nur schwer einschätzen lassen.
Markenrecht
Markenrechtlicher Schutz von Domainnamen
Für den Schutz eines Domainnamens als Marke gelten im deutschen Recht die allgemeinen Bestimmungen. Ein Domainname kann daher ohne weiteres Markenschutz erlangen, soweit er den besonderen Schutzvoraussetzungen genügt; d.h.
insbesondere, soweit er im Hinblick auf die Waren oder Dienstleistungen, für die
der Schutz gelten soll, Unterscheidungskraft besitzt und soweit er keine beschreibende oder allgemein übliche Angabe ist.
Da die Eintragung im Markenregister nach deutschem Recht keine zwingende Voraussetzung des Markenschutzes darstellt, kann ein Domainname auch durch blosse Benutzung markennrechtlichen Schutz erwerben. Voraussetzung ist, dass er
infolge der Benutzung bei den beteiligten Verkehrskreisen als Kennzeichen für die
Waren oder Dienstleistungen des Inhabers bekannt geworden ist, d.h., dass er
Verkehrsgeltung erworben hat. Der Erwerb von Verkehrsgeltung ist um so eher
möglich, je intensiver der Domainname im geschäftlichen Verkehr im Zusammenhang mit den betreffenden Waren oder Dienstleistungen benutzt wird. Die Chancen
für den Erwerb von Markenschutzes sind daher grösser, wenn der Domainname
auch in der Werbung oder in sonstigen Vertriebsmassnahmen benutzt wird, als
dann, wenn er lediglich als Internet-Adresse Verwendung findet.
Die Tatsache, dass Domainnamen, um als Internet-Adresse benutzt werden zu
können, bei der Vergabestelle registriert werden müssen, ist in jedem Fall rechtlich
unbeachtlich.
Absolute Ungültigkeit
Eine analoge Anwendung der im formellen Zeichenrecht geltenden absoluten
Schutzhindernisse des § 8 Abs. 2 MarkenG auf die Registrierung von Domainna116
men wurde durch das OLG Frankfurt in Bezug auf das Eintragungsverbot freihaltebedürftiger und nicht unterscheidungskräftiger Marken zu Recht abgelehnt. (OLG
Frankfurt, CR 1997, 271, 273).
Damit ein juristisch haltbarer Analogieschluss zustande kommt, bedarf es des
Nachweises, dass der vom Gesetzgeber nicht geregelte Sachverhalt dem Fall, für
den die rechtliche Regelung vorhanden ist, so ähnlich ist, dass er der gleichen
rechtlichen Behandlung unterworfen werden kann. Eine derartige Ähnlichkeit zwischen Markenregistrierung und Domainregistrierung besteht nicht.
Zwar gibt es zwischen Markenregistrierung und Domainvergabe gewisse Parallelen, da auch die Domainvergabe zumindest zu einer faktischen Monopolstellung
führen kann. Dies allein vermag aber die analoge Anwendung des absoluten Eintragungshindernisses von § 8 Abs. 2 Nr. 1, 2 MarkenG auf Domainnamen nicht zu
rechtfertigen. Gegen eine Anwendung des § 8 Abs. 2 Nr.1, 2 spricht vornehmlich
der Umstand, dass die Domainvergabe anders als die Markenregistrierung durch
eine private Registrierungsstelle erfolgt und ein vergleichbares staatliches Prüfungs- und Überwachungsinstrumentarium nach der derzeitigen Rechtslage nicht
zur Verfügung steht.
Dieselben Argumente sprechen auch gegen eine analoge Anwendung der sonstigen absoluten Eintragungshindernisse, wie etwa der Eintragungsverbote für täuschende sowie sittenwidrige und gegen die öffentliche Ordnung verstossende Marken, § 8 Abs. 2 Nr. 3, 5 MarkenG. Allerdings kann die Benutzung von Domainnamen nach den Grundsätzen des Rechts gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb untersagt
werden, wenn sie gegen das Lauterkeitsgebot bzw. das lrreführungverbot der § 1
und 3 UWG verstösst.
d)
Bösgläubige Markeneintragung
Nach § 50 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 MarkenG kann die Eintragung einer Marke gelöscht werden, wenn die Anmeldung bösgläubig erfolgt ist. Ob die Anmeldung als bösgläubig
zu qualifizieren ist, hängt von den Gegebenheiten des Einzelfalles ab. Dabei kann
der Umstand, dass die Bezeichnung bereits zuvor von einem anderen als Domainname (bzw. als Bestandteil eines Domainnamens) benutzt worden ist, Berücksichtigung finden, ohne dass dadurch das Vorliegen von Bösgläubigkeit in jedem Falle
indiziert wäre. Rechtsprechung zu dieser Frage gibt es bisher, soweit ersichtlich,
noch nicht.
Nach allgemeinen Grundsätzen wird eine bösgläubige Anmeldung am ehesten
dann anzunehmen sein, wenn
die Bezeichnung zuvor als Domainname für dieselben oder ähnliche Waren
oder Dienstleistungen benutzt worden ist;
der Umfang der Benutzung erheblich war;
dem Anmelder der Marke kein eigenes Recht an der Bezeichnung zusteht
und
117
es sich nicht um eine für die vom Markeninhaber angebotenen Waren oder
Dienstleistungen naheliegende Bezeichnung handelt.
Domainnamen und Benutzungszwang
Ausschlaggebend für die Beantwortung der Frage, ob die Benutzung eines Domainnamens als Internet-Adresse eine rechtserhaltende Benutzung im Sinne der
Vorschriften über den Benutzungszwang darstellt, ist das Verständnis der beteiligten Verkehrskreise. Danach dürfte zu differenzieren sein: Von einer rechtserhaltenden Benutzung wird am ehesten dann auszugehen sein, wenn die Marke für Internet-Dienstleistungen eingetragen ist. Soweit die Bezeichnung als Marke für die auf
dem Internet-Server angebotenen Waren oder Internet-fremden Dienstleistungen
(z.B. Gastronomie, handwerkliche Leistungen etc.) eingetragen ist, wird die Erfüllung der Erfordernisse des Benutzungszwanges hingegen zweifelhaft sein. Rechtsprechung zu diesen Fragen gibt es bisher nicht.
Territoriale Wirkung der Benutzung
Die Frage nach der territorialen Wirkung der Benutzung von Marken im Internet
steht in einem engen Zusammenhang mit weiteren Fragen, die sich mit der Globalität des Internet und seinen Konsequenzen für die Reichweite des Territorialitätsprinzips befassen (s. dazu noch unten, I, p, q). Wie unten noch näher auszuführen sein wird, würde es zu rechtlich wenig sinnvollen Ergebnissen führen, wenn der
Umstand, dass das Internet prinzipiell in jedem Land der Welt zugänglich ist, dazu
führen müsste, dass der Erwähnung von Kennzeichen etc. im Internet in allen diesen Ländern rechtserhebliche Bedeutung beigemessen wird. Vielmehr muss eine
gewisse Intensität der auf das betreffende Land gerichteten Geschäftstätigkeit vorliegen. Dies gilt zum einen für die Frage, ob ein Konflikt mit einheimischen Kennzeichen vorliegt; für die Frage nach der rechtserhaltenden Benutzung müssen fol-
gerichtigerweise die gleichen, unten noch näher zu erläuternden Kriterien ausschlaggebend sein.
Verletzung von Marken durch Domainnamen
-
Grundsatz
In der deutschen Rechtspraxis werden die Grundsätze des Markenschutzes gegenüber Domainnamen tendenziell grosszügig angewendet. Von grösserer praktischer Bedeutung als das Markenrecht eS. ( 14 MarkenG) ist allerdings der
Schutz geschäftlicher Bezeichnungen und Namen. Die Grundlagen dieses Schutzes sind z.T. ebenfalls im MarkenG geregelt - § 5, 15 MarkenG -, wobei die Voraussetzungen des Schutzes im wesentlichen dieselben sind wie im Falle von Markenverletzungen (s. dazu im einzelnen noch unten). Darüber hinaus kann § 12
BGB Anwendung finden, der in Voraussetzungen und Umfang flexibler ist als der
Kennzeichenschutz auf der Grundlage des Markengesetzes (zu § 12 BGB s. noch
unten, n).
Die Voraussetzungen der Marken- (Kennzeichen)verletzung im einzelnen
118
Benutzung im geschäftlichen Verkehr
Grundvoraussetzung für eine Markenverletzung gem. § 14 MarkenG ist die Benut-
zung im geschäftlichen Verkehr. Diese Voraussetzung ist zweifellos erfüllt, soweit der unter dem Domainnamen erreichbare server zur Abwicklung kommerzieller
Aktivitäten dient. Anders ist es bei rein privater Nutzung, z.B. Teilnahme an Newsgroups; in diesen Fällen kommt nur die Anwendung ausserzeichenrechtlicher Vorschriften in Betracht (s. dazu noch unten, n).
Zweifel können bestehen, soweit gegen die Eintragung von Domainnamen durch
Einzelpersonen vorgegangen werden soll, bei denen noch nicht ohne weiteres
festgestellt werden kann, welcher Gebrauch von dem Domainnamen gemacht werden soll. Zumindest in den Fällen, in denen die betreffende Adresse dem Inhaber
der Marke oder sonstigen geschäftlichen Bezeichnung zum Kauf angeboten wird
("domain grabbing"), ist jedoch davon auszugehen, dass eine Benutzung im geschäftlichen Verkehr bevorsteht, so dass eine vorbeugende Unterlassungsklage
aufgrund der markenrechtlichen Vorschriften erhoben werden kann (so auch LG
Düsseldorf y. 4.April 1997, 34 0 191/96 - Epson).
Kennzeichenmässige Benutzung
Im deutschen Recht wird überwiegend daran festgehalten, dass eine Markenverletzung nur dann vorliegt, wenn die verletzende Bezeichnung "kennzeichenmässig"
verwendet wird. Z.T. wird argumentiert, dass die Verwendung eines Domainnazu
mens,
soweit sie lediglich
Adressierungszwecken erfolgt,
keine
"kennzeichenmässige" Benutzung darstelle. Von der Rechtsprechung Ist diese Argumentation überwiegend zurückgewiesen worden. Es ist zwar zutreffend, dass die
primäre Funktion von Domainnamen darin liegt, einen bestimmten Rechner innerhalb des Internet als "Zielort" von Botschaften zu identifizieren; sie werden darüber
hinaus jedoch regelmässig auch als Hinweis auf den Adressaten selbst bzw. die
von ihm angebotenen Waren oder Dienstleistungen aufgefasst. In diesem Sinne
beinhaltet die Benutzung als Internet-Adresse regelmässig zugleich die Benutzung
als Marke bzw. sonstiges Kennzeichen.
Verletzungstatbestände: Verwechslungsgefahr und erweiterter Schutz bekannter Marken
Vom Bestehen einer Verwechslungsgefahr ist grundsätzlich auszugehen, soweit es
sich um identische oder ähnliche Zeichen handelt, die für identische oder ähnliche
Waren oder Dienstleistungen benutzt werden ( 14 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 MarkenG). Im Falle
von Konflikten zwischen Domainnamen und Marken bzw. sonstigen Kennzeichen
führt das Abstellen auf die Ähnlichkeit der Waren oder Dienstleistungen allerdings
z.T. zu unbefriedigenden Ergebnissen, da
die ÄhnlichkeitiNichtähnlichkeit der angebotenen Waren oder Dienstleistungen im Internet weniger leicht erkennbar ist als im üblichen Vertrieb;
eine Blockadewirkung bei übereinstimmenden Bezeichnungen auch dann
eintritt, wenn es um unterschiedliche Waren oder Dienstleistungen geht;
119
insbesondere in Fällen des "domain grabbing" regelmässig gar nicht absehbar ist, welche Waren oder Dienstleistungen über den betreffenden server
angeboten werden sollen.
Soweit es sich bei dem verletzten Zeichen um eine bekannte Marke handelt, erstreckt sich der Schutz auch auf die Benutzung für unähnliche Waren oder Dienstleistungen, soweit durch die Verwendung der Bezeichnung die Unterscheidungskraft oder die Wertschätzung der bekannten Marke oder geschäftlichen Bezeichnung unlauter und ohne rechtfertigenden Grund ausgenutzt oder beeinträchtigt wird
( 14 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 MarkenG). Diese Voraussetzungen dürften im Falle des "domaingrabbing" an bekannten Kennzeichen regelmässig erfüllt sein.
In einer Entscheidung des LG Düsseldorf (y. 4 April 1997; s. bereits oben) wird im
übrigen die Auffassung vertreten, dass es auch im Rahmen des Verwechslungstatbestandes ( 14 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 MarkenG) nicht auf die Ähnlichkeit der angebotenen
Waren oder Dienstleistungen ankommt, sondern dass die unter der Bezeichnung
eröffnete homepage selber das Produkt darstellt, das in Beziehung zu dem Geschäftsbetrieb der Kennzeicheninhaberin gesetzt wird. Auf diese Weise ist die Annahme einer Verwechslungsgefahr eher möglich als bei Anlegung der sonst üblichen Massstäbe. Es ist allerdings sehr zweifelhaft, ob eine so weite Auslegung von
§ 14 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 MarkenG noch mit Wortlaut und Sinn der Vorschrift vereinbar ist.
h)
Disclaimers
Ob die Benutzung eines Kennzeichens im Internet zu einem Konflikt mit einem
fremden Schutzrecht führt, hängt u.a. davon ab, ob über das Internet eine gezielte
geschäftliche Tätigkeit auf dem Territorium betrieben wird, innerhalb dessen der
Schutz des betreffenden Kennzeichens besteht (s, dazu noch im einzelnen unten, I,
p, q). In diesem Zusammenhang können Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärungen ein
sinnvolles Mittel darstellen, um zum Ausdruck zu bringen, dass das Unternehmen
im Hinblick auf bestimmte Schutzrechtsterritorien keine Geschäftstätigkeit entfalten
möchte; allerdings kann solchen "disclaimers' nur die Wirkung eines von mehreren
in die Wertung einzubeziehenden Beurteilungskriterien beigemessen werden. Eine
solche Erklärung kann etwa in Form eines deutlichen Hinweises auf der Homepage
erfolgen, dass die angebotenen Waren und Dienstleistungen nicht an Kunden aus
Deutschland vertrieben werden. Falls die Abwicklung der geschäftlichen Tätigkeit wie etwa die Bereitstellung kostenpflichtiger Informationen oder Dienstleistungen unmittelbar über das Internet erfolgt, wird es zur Ausräumung von Konflikten ferner
erforderlich sein, die Abrufbarkeit der betreffenden Website von der Benutzung eines Passwortes abhängig zu machen, das ausschliesslich an die Internetnutzer
derjenigen Länder vergeben wird, in denen die Benutzung des Kennzeichens kollisionsfrei möglich Ist.
j)
Konflikte zwischen Domainnamen und Marken für Kommunikationsmittein
Bei Verwendung eines Domainnamens, der mit der Marke (bzw. dem Titel) einer
Zeitschrift etc. übereinstimmt, liegt die Gefahr einer Verwechslung naturgemäss
besonders nahe. Dies ergibt sich - jedenfalls nach deutschem Recht - bereits aus
allgemeinen rechtlichen Grundsätzen und bedarf daher keiner besonderen Regelung.
120
Recht des Handeisnamens
Schutzfähigkeit von Domainnamen
Zur Frage der rechtlichen Qualifizierung von Domainnamen liegen bisher keine
Entscheidungen vor. Die praktische Relevanz dieser Frage ist auch begrenzt: Sie
stellt sich nur dann, wenn ein Unternehmen einen Domainnamen registrieren lässt,
der sich von den eigenen Kennzeichenrechten (Marken, geschäftliche Bezeichnungen) unterscheidet. Soweit das Unternehmen die eigene Firma oder geschäftliche
Bezeichnung oder eine eigene Marke als Domainname benutzt, kann bereits aus
diesen Kennzeichenrechten gegen die ungerectitfertigte Benutzung durch Dritte
vorgegangen werden.
Als Rechtsgrundlage für einen eigenständigen Schutz von Domainnamen kommt
entweder § 5 Abs. 1 Satz 1 MarkenG (besondere Bezeichnung eines Geschäftsbetriebes) oder § 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 MarkenG (Geschäftsabzeichen) in Betracht. Im ersten Fall würde der Kennzeichenschutz von Domainnamen - unter der Voraussetzung, dass die konkrete Bezeichnung ursprüngliche Unterscheidungskraft besitzt bereits mit der Aufnahme der Benutzung des Domainnamens im geschäftlichen
Verkehr einsetzen; im zweiten Fall würde der Schutz erst dann eingreifen, wenn der
Domainname innerhalb der beteiligten Verkehrskreise als Kennzeichen des Geschäftsbetriebes gilt.
Anhaltspunkte für die rechtliche Einordnung von Domainnamen lassen sich der
Rechtsprechung des BGH zum Schutz von Telegrammadressen entnehmen. Dieser Rechtsprechung zufolge reicht der Umstand, dass eine Telegrammadresse ein
Kennzeichen nach Art des Namens oder der Firma darstellt, zur Gewährung des
Namensschutzes nicht aus, wenn und soweit die Telegramm-Kurzanschrift den
beteiligten Verkehrskreisen unbekannt geblieben ist. Telegrammadressen werden
somit nicht den besonderen Geschäftsbezeichnungen, sondern den Geschäftsabzeichen zugerechnet; eigenständigen Schutz erlangen sie nur bei Nachweis von
Verkehrsgeltung. Als Begründung wird darauf hingewiesen, dass die Schutzgewährung ohne Verkehrsgeltung bei Erstbenutzung zu einer nicht erträglichen Belastung
des Verkehrs führen würde.
Entsprechendes dürfte auch für Domainnamen gelten. Zwar kommt einem Domainnamen neben seiner Adressfunktion auch eine ldentifizierungsfunktion nach der Art
des Namens und der Firma zu; angesichts der entgegenstehenden Verkehrsinteressen ist dieser Gesichtspunkt jedoch nicht ausreichend, um den Domainnamen
als besondere Bezeichnung eines Geschäftsbetriebes i.S.d. § 5 Abs.2 Satz I MarkenG bereits mit Ingebrauchnahme zu schützen.
Absolute Ungültigkeitsgründe
Oben (c) ist bereits darauf hingewiesen worden, dass eine analoge Anwendung der
Vorschriften über die absoluten Eintragungshindernisse für Marken ( 8 Abs. 2
MarkenG) auf die Eintragung von Domainnamen nicht in Betracht kommt. Dasselbe
gilt für die analoge Anwendung des Firmenregisterrechts, das Zusätze untersagt,
die geeignet sind, Täuschungen über die Art und Umfang des Geschäfts oder die
Verhältnisse des Geschäftsinhabers herbeizuführen ( 18 Abs. 2 HGB).
121
Wie unter c) bereits ausgeführt wurde, ist jedoch die Anwendung der Vorschriften
des allgemeinen Wettbewerbsrechts ohne weiteres möglich. Die Benutzung eines
nach dem bestehenden Registrierungsverfahren wirksam eingetragenen Domainnamens kann daher im Klagewege durch die Mitbewerber untersagt werden, wenn
sie gegen die wettbewerbsrechtliche Generalklausel des § 1 oder das Irreführungsverbot des § 3 UWG verstösst.
I)
Verletzung durch einen Domainnamen (grenzüberschreitende Kollisionen)
Die Frage nach den im Hinblick auf die grenzüberschreitenden Wirkungen des Internets geltenden materiellrechtlichen Voraussetzungen zeichenrechtlicher Unterlassungsansprüche steht in engem Zusammenhang mit den Fragen der internationalen Zuständigkeit sowie der kollsionsrechtlichen Frage der Anwendbarkeit des
deutschen Rechts.
Der Umstand, dass ein Domainname von prinzipiell jedem Land der Welt abruthar
ist, kann nicht dazu führen, dass der Benutzer eines Domainnamens in sämtlichen
Verbreitungsländern des Internets vor ausländischen Gerichten und nach ausländischem Recht in Anspruch genommen werden kann, obwohl sich die geschäftliche
Tätigkeit des Domaininhabers weiterhin innerhalb der eigenen Landesgrenzen hält.
Die materiellrechtlichen Voraussetzungen einer kennzeichenrechtlichen sowie
wettbewerbsrechtlichen Inanspruchnahme ebenso wie die Zuständigkeit der deutschen Gerichte und die Anwendbarkeit deutschen Rechts (s. dazu unten p und q)
werden nur dann gegeben sein, wenn die unter dem Domainnamen abrufbare
Website geeignet ist, auf den deutschen Markt einzuwirken. Eine solche Einwirkung
wird regelmässig dann ausscheiden, wenn die beworbenen Waren und Dienstleistungen von deutschen Abnehmern nicht bezogen werden können oder sich die
Website aufgrund ihrer sprachlichen Fassung nur an einen vernachlässigbar kleinen Rezipientenkreis in Deutschland richtet.
Die wettbewerbsrechtlichen Ansprüche werden in solchen Fällen schon daran
scheitern, dass auf dem Gebiet der Bundesrepublik Deutschland nicht zu Zwecken
des Wettbewerbs gehandelt wird, wenn sich die geschäftliche Tätigkeit des Unternehmens trotz weltweiter Abrufbarkeit der Website auch weiterhin auf einen rein
inländischen Kundenkreis beschränkt. Dies entspricht dem Grundsatz, dass unlauterer Wettbewerb in der Regel nur wettbewerblicher Interessenüberschneidung
das Anliegen der Verhinderung unlauterer Wettbewerbshandlungen berührt wird.
Das gleiche wird auch hinsichtlich kennzeichenrechtlicher Ansprüche gelten müssen. Der Umstand, dass ein Domainname, der mit einem fremden Kennzeichen
identisch oder ähnlich ist, auf dem Gebiet der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wahr-
genommen werden kann, begründet für sich allein noch keine Verletzung einer
Marke oder geschäftlichen Bezeichnung, wenn sich die Geschäftstätigkeit weiterhin
auf den nationalen Markt beschränkt. -
122
Siehe die Ausführungen unter h)
Unlauterer Wettbewerb; sonstige Rechtsgrundlagen
Schutz gegen die unrechtmässige Benutzung von Marken und sonstigen Kennzeichen als Domainnamen kann auch auf der Grundlage der Vorschriften gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb ( I UWG), sowie gegen unlautere Handlungen (
823,
1004; 826 BGB) in Anspruch genommen werden. In Betracht kommt ferner § 12
BGB, die Vorschrift zum Schutz von Namensrechten.
Voraussetzung für das Eingreifen von § I UWG ist das Vorliegen einer unlauteren
Handlung im geschäftlichen Verkehr sowie das Bestehen eines Wettbewerbsverhältnisses zwischen den Parteien. In seinem Inhalt geht § I UWG über die aufgrund des Markengesetzes bestehenden Schutzmöglichkeiten nicht mehr wesentlich hinaus, seitdem in § 14 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 und 15 Abs. 3 des neuen MarkenG die
dem Vorbild der Gemeinschaftsmarkenverordnung und der Markenrechtsrichtlinie
folgenden Regelungen über den erweiterten Kennzeichenschutz für bekannte Marken und geschäftliche Bezeichnungen aufgenommen worden sind.
Hingegen ist der Anwendungsbereich der Vorschriften des bürgerlichen Rechts
grundsätzlich deutlich weiter als derjenige des Marken- und Wettbewerbsrechts.
Insbesondere können diese Vorschriften ungeachtet dessen Anwendung finden, ob
die Beeinträchtigung innerhalb des geschäftlichen Verkehrs stattfindet und ob die
Parteien in einem Wettbewerbsverhältnis zueinander stehen. Im einzelnen:
Eine unerlaubte Handlung i.S. des § 823 Abs. I BGB liegt vor, wenn ein zielgerichteter Eingriff gegen eine fremde Marke oder ein sonstiges Kennzeichen als Bestandteil des eingerichteten und ausgeübten Gewerbebetriebes erfolgt. Nach bisheriger Rechtspraxis kommt dieser Vorschrift neben den Vorschriften des Marken-
rechts allerdings nur eine auf Ausnahmefälle (Schutz "berühmter" Marken) beschränkte, ergänzende Funktion zu. Obwohl somit eine gewisse Zurückhaltung angezeigt ist, dürften keine Bedenken dagegen bestehen, diesen Tatbestand auch in
Fällen des gezielten, eindeutigen "domain-grabbing" heranzuziehen, soweit der
Rechtsinhaber durch diese Handlung in der Ausübung seiner Geschäftstätigkeit erheblich behindert wird. Praktische Bedeutung besitzt die ergänzende Heranziehung
des § 823 u.U. dann, wenn eine Kennzeichenverletzung im engeren Sinne - etwa
wegen fehlender Benutzung im geschäftlichen Verkehr, s.o., g (1) - nicht angenommen werden kann (z.B. wenn ehrverletzende Behauptungen über ein Produkt
oder ein Unternehemen unter dem entsprechenden Domainnamen in privaten
Newsgroups etc. verbreitet werden).
Voraussetzung für die Anwendung von § 826 BGB ist das Vorliegen einer absichtlichen sittenwidrigen Schädigung. Es ist möglich, dass die Eintragung eines fremden
Kennzeichens als eine solche Schädigung anzusehen ist; dies richtet sich nach den
Umständen des Einzelfalles.
Von erheblicher praktischer Bedeutung ist neben den deliktsrechtlichen Vorschriften des Bürgerlichen Rechts auch § 12 BGB, die Vorschrift über den Namensschutz. Auf diese Vorschrift können sich u.a. Gebietskörperschaften - wegen der
123
Eintragung von Städtenamen als second-level-domains - sowie auch die Inhaber
von Handelsnamen berufen. Voraussetzung ist die unbefugte Benutzung eines
fremden Namens, durch die eine Zuordnungsverwirrung hervorgerufen wird.
Wegen seiner generalklauselartigen Weite ist der Tatbestand des Namensschutzes
grundsätzlich besser geeignet als die zeichenrechtlichen Tatbestände i.e.S., den
Besonderheiten von Domainnamen-Konflikten gerecht zu werden. Auf der anderen
Seite besteht die Gefahr, dass die immanenten Schranken des Markenschutzes
durch eine allzu weit gehende Auslegung von § 12 BGB umgangen werden.
Sanktionen
Als Sanktion der Verletzung einer Marke oder eines Handelsnamens durch die Eintragung oder Benutzung eines Domainnamens kommt in erster Linie die Untersagung des weiteren Gebrauchs in Betracht. Ferner kann im Falle des Verschuldens
Ersatz des ggf. entstandenen Schadens verlangt werden. Der Verletzer kann auch
verpflichtet werden, seine Zustimmung zur Übertragung des rechtswidrig eingetragenen Domainnamens auf den Rechtsinhaberzu erteilen.
Ansprüche auf Übertragung von Domainnamen gegenüber der Vergabestelle DENIC sind zwar denkbar, ihre rechtliche Begründung ist jedoch zweifelhaft. In der
Praxis sind solche Ansprüche, soweit ersichtlich, noch nicht geltend gemacht worden.
Internationales Privatrecht
Der territoriale Schutzbereich besteht im Grundsatz bei dem förmlichen Markenschutz im Geltungsbereich des Markengesetzes, bei geschäftlichen Bezeichnungen
im Territorium ihrer Kennzeichnungskraft. Diese Rechte können grundsätzlich auch
durch Handlungen im Ausland verletzt werden, wenn deren Erfolg im Inland eintritt
(lex bd delicti commissi). Ein Unternehmen, das eine Website unter einem Domainnamen im Internet zum Abruf bereit hält und dadurch seine geschäftliche Tätigkeit auf das Gebiet der Bundesrepublik Deutschland erstreckt, muss daher im
Falle von Kennzeichenverletzungen damit rechnen, vor einem deutschen Gericht
nach deutschem Recht in Anspruch genommen zu werden. Einschränkungen dieses Grundsatzes müssen in solchen Fällen gelten, in denen der Domainname für
eine Website benutzt wird, die zwar vom Territorium der Bundesrepublik abrufbar,
jedoch nicht darauf gerichtet ist, die Geschäftstätigkeit auf den deutschen Markt
auszudehnen.
In Anlehnung an die internationalprivatrechtliche Behandlung der Multi-State Werbung und der internationalen Verbreitung von Periodika wird man auch hier als Korrektiv eine kollisionsrechtlichen Spürbarkeitsgrenze annehmen müssen, mit der
Folge, dass im Sinne des kennzeichenrechtichen Schutzlandprinzips deutsches
Recht nur dann Anwendung findet, wénn die unter dem Domainnamen abrufbare
Website geeignet ist, auf die Abnehmer und Werbeadressaten in Deutschland einzuwirken. Dies wird dann nicht der Fall sein, wenn die beworbenen Waren und
Dienstleistungen auf dem deutschen Markt nicht erhältlich sind oder sich die Website aufgrund ihrer sprachlichen Fassung nur an einen vernachlässigbar kleinen
Rezipientenkreis in Deutschland richtet (s. dazu auch bereits oben, I).
124
q)
Ob ein deutsches Gericht international zuständig ist, bestimmt sich vorbehaltlich
völkerrechtlicher Abkommen nach den Regeln über die örtliche Zuständigkeit, also
danach, ob ein Gerichtsstand im Inland gegeben ist. Da der Verletzer in derartigen
Konfliktfällen in der Regel weder Sitz, Niederlassung, Wohnsitz noch Vermögen im
Inland hat, hängt die internationale Zuständigkeit davon ab, ob der besondere Gerichtsstand des Begehungsorts gegeben ist ( 32 ZPO). Dieser setzt voraus, dass
wenigstens ein Teilakt der unerlaubten Handlung im Bezirk des angerufenen Gerichts begangen worden ist.
Anhaltspunkte dafür, unter welchen Voraussetzungen die Benutzung eines Domainnamens eine die internationale und örtliche Zuständigkeit eines deutschen Gerichts begründende Handlung darstellt, lassen sich der Rechtsprechung des BGH
zur internationalen Zuständigkeit bei der grenzüberschreitenden Verbreitung von
Presseerzeugnissen entnehmen. Bei unerlaubten Handlungen in Presseerzeugnis-
sen gilt der Grundsatz, dass diese nur dort begangen worden sind, wo die Zeitschrift entweder im regelmässigen Geschäftsverkehr oder bestimmungsgemäss
und nicht nur zufällig verbreitet wird. Mit dieser Einschränkung sollen Fälle ausgeschieden werden, in denen die Presseerzeugnisse zufällig in ein Gebiet gelangen,
in dem der Verleger oder Herausgeber eine Verbreitung weder beabsichtigt noch
mit ihr rechnen muss.
Vergleichbare Überlegungen kommen auch für die Beurteilung von Verbreitungshandlungen über das Internet in Betracht. Selbst wenn die grenzüberschreitende
Wirkung des Internets für einen Unternehmer voraussehbar und der Domainname
prinzipiell in jedem Land der Welt optisch wahrnehmbar ist, wird man von einer die
Zuständigkeit begründenden unerlaubten Handlung i.S.d. § 32 ZPO nur dort sprechen können, wo die Abrufbarkeit der Website zu einer Einwirkung auf den deutschen Markt zukommt. Die gegenteilige Auffassung würde zu dem völlig unangemessenen Ergebnis führen, dass ein nur innerhalb der Landesgrenzen oder nur regional tätiges Unternehmen damit rechnen müsste, vor den Gerichten sämtlicher
Verbreitungsländer des Internets verklagt zu werden.
Zusammenfassung
Einleitung
a)
In Deutschland werden nationale Domainnamen (Top-level-domain 'de") von DENIC verwaltet. Die Beantragung von Domainnamen erfolgt über die einzelnen Service-Provider oder über die Gesellschaft Intra-Net GmbH, die auch das Inkasso
vornimmt. Um Missbräuchen zu begegnen, werden keine Reservierungen von Domainnamen für den späteren Gebrauch mehr vorgenommen. Bei der Antragstellung muss der Anmelder versichern, dass er keine fremden Rechte verletzt. Im übrigen wird weder eine Prüfung durchgeführt noch Gelegenheit zum Widerspruch
gegeben. Wesentliche Änderungen des nationalen Systems sind derzeit (Sommer
1997) nicht geplant.
125
Markenrecht
Domainnamen können markenrechtlichen Schutz erhalten, wenn sie die allgemeinen Voraussetzungen erfüllen. Der Schutz kann auch ohne Eintragung entstehen,
wenn der Domainname bei den beteiligten Verkehrskreisen als Kennzeichen für die
betreffenden Waren oder Dienstleistungen des Inhabers gilt ("Verkehrsgeltung').
Der Umstand, dass der Domainname bei der Vergabestelle registriert Ist, ist im
Hinblick auf den Markenschutz unerheblich.
Eine analoge Anwendung der im formellen Zeichenrecht geltenden absoluten
Schutzhindernisse des 8 Abs. 2 MarkenG auf Domainnamen scheidet aus, da sich
das markenrechtliche Registrierungsverfahren vor dem Deutschen Patentamt
grundlegend vom Vergabeverfahren von Domainnamen unterscheidet. Gegen die
Benutzung sittenwidriger und täuschender Domainnamen stehen den Mitbewerbern
Unterlassungsansprüche auf der Grundlage der allgemeinen wettbewerbsrechtlichen Vorschriften des § 1 und § 3 UWG zu.
Die vorherige Benutzung einer Bezeichnung als Domainname kann dazu führen,
dass eine spätere Markenanmeldung durch einen anderen als bösgläubig zu qualifizieren ist und gem. § 50 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 MarkenG gelöscht werden kann. Ob von der
Bösgläubigkeit des Anmelders auszugehen ist, hängt von den Umständen des Einzelfalles ab. Von Bedeutung ist dabei u.a., ob
die Bezeichnung als Domainname für dieselben oder ähnliche Waren oder
Dienstleistungen benutzt worden ist;
der Umfang der Benutzung erheblich war;
wenn dem Anmelder der Marke kein eigenes Recht an der Bezeichnung zusteht und
es sich nicht um eine für die vom Markeninhaber angebotenen Waren oder
Dienstleistungen naheliegende Bezeichnung handelt.
Ob die Benutzung einer Bezeichnung als Domainname als rechtserhaltend S. der
Vorschriften über den Benutzungszwang anzusehen ist, hängt vom Verständnis der
beteiligten Verkehrskreise ab. Am ehesten dürfte dann von einer rechtserhaltenden
Benutzung auszugehen sein, wenn die Marke für Internet-Informationen und
Dienstleistungen eingetragen ist.
(Nur) dann, wenn die Benutzung einer Marke in einer Weise erfolgt, die nach den
für die kollisionsrechtliche Beurteilung geltenden Kriterien als erheblich anzusehen
ist, dürfte sie für das betreffende Territorium auch als rechtserhaltend i.S. der Vorschriften über den Benutzungszwang anzusehen sein.
Es besteht kein Zweifel darüber, dass die Registrierung und Benutzung von Domainnamen zu einer Verletzung übereinstimmender Marken und anderer Kennzeichen führen kann. Im deutschen Recht werden die Vorschriften des Kennzeichenschutzes in diesen Fällen regelmässig grosszügig, mit deutlicher Tendenz zugunsten der Inhaber von Marken und anderen Kennzeichenrechten, angewendet.
126
Die Vorschriften des Zeichenschutzes sind nicht anwendbar, soweit ein Kennzeichen zum Zweck der rein privaten Kommunikation verwendet wird; in diesen Fällen
sind allein die Vorschriften des bürgerlichen Rechts anwendbar (s. dazu noch unten, n). Zweifel hinsichtlich der Anwendbarkeit der zeichenrechtlichen Vorschriften
bestehen ferner dann, wenn der Domainname für nicht-ähnliche Waren oder
Dienstleistungen benutzt wird. In diesen Fällen kann allerdings häufig auf die Vorschriften über den erweiterten Schutz bekannter Marken oder geschäftlicher Kennzeichen zurückgegriffen werden.
Ob es auf einem bestimmten Territorium zu einem Konflikt zwischen einem Domainnamen und einem Kennzeichenrecht kommt, hängt u.a. davon ab, ob über das
Internet eine gezielte Geschäftstätigkeit auf dem betreffenden Territorium betrieben
wird (s. noch unten, I, p, q). In diesem Zusammenhang können Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärungen (disclaimers) ein sinnvolles Mittel darstellen, um zum Ausdruck
zu bringen, dass eine solche Geschäftstätigkeit nicht beabsichtigt ist. In Betracht
kommt etwa ein deutlicher Hinweis auf der Homepage, dass die angebotenen Wa-
ren und Dienstleistungen nicht an Kunden aus Deutschland vertrieben werden.
Soweit Dienstleistungen unmittelbar über das Internet abgewickelt werden, ist zudem die Abrutharkeit der betreffenden Website von der Benutzung eines Passwortes abhängig zu machen, das ausschliesslich an die Internetnutzer der Länder vergeben wird, in denen eine Benutzung des Domainnamens kollisionsfrei möglich ist.
Domainnamen, die mit dem Kennzeichen eines Kommunikationsmittels (Zeitschrift
etc.) übereinstimmen, werden naturgemäss sehr häufig die Gefahr einer Verwechslung hervorrufen können. Einer besonderen Regelung dieser Fälle bedarf es
jedoch nicht.
Recht des Handeisnamens
Zur Frage der rechtlichen Qualifizierung von Domainnamen liegen bislang keine
gerichtlichen Entscheidungen vor. In Betracht kommt entweder eine Einordnung als
besondereBezeichnung eines Geschäftsbetriebes i.S.d § 5 Abs. 2 S.1 MarkenG
oder ein Schutz als Geschäftsabzeichen im Sinne des § 5 Abs. 2 S. 2 MarkenG. Im
ersten Fall beginnt der Kennzeichenschutz von Domainnamen bereits mit der Aufnahme der Benutzung des Domainnamens im geschäftlichen Verkehr. Im zweiten
Fall setzt ein möglicher Schutz erst dann ein, wenn der Domainname innerhalb der
beteiligten Verkehrskreise als Kennzeichen des Geschäftsbetriebs gilt. In Anlehung
an dieRechtsprechung des BGH zum Schutz von Telegrammadressen erscheint
die Einordnung als Geschäftsabzeichen vorzugswürdig. Die Tatsache, dass den
Domainnamen neben ihrer Adressfunktion auch eine Identifizierungsfunktion nach
der Art des Namens und der Firma zukommt, reicht nicht aus, um Domainnamen
schon bei Benutzungsaufnahme ein prioritätsbegründendes Kennzeichenrecht zu
gewähren.
Oben (c) wurde bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass eine entsprechende Anwendung
der markenrechtlichen Schutzhindernisse auf Domainnamen nicht in Betracht
kommt. Dasselbe gilt für die Bestimmungen des Firmenregisterrechts, wonach Zu-
127
sätze untersagt sind, die geeignet sind, über die Art und Umfang des Geschäfts
oder die Verhältnisse des Geschäftsinhabers herbeizuführen (
18 if. HGB).
Wie bereits unter c) ausgeführt wurde, können jedoch die Vorschriften der § 1, 3
UWG Anwendung finden, sofern die Benutzung eines Domainnamens eine sittenwidrige oder irreführende Handlung darstellt.
I)
Der Umstand, dass Domainnamen von prinzipiell jedem Land der Welt aus abrufbar
sind, kann nicht dazu führen, dass der Benutzer eines Domainnamens in sämtli-
chen Verbreitungsländern des Internets vor ausländischen Gerichten und nach
ausländischem Recht in Anspruch genommen werden kann, obwohl sich die geschäftliche Tätigkeit weiterhin innerhalb der eigenen Landesgrenzen hält. Die materiellrechtlichen Voraussetzungen einer kennzeichenrechtlichen oder wettbewerbs-
rechtlichen Inanspruchnahme, ebenso wie die Zuständigkeit der deutschen Gerichte und die Anwendbarkeit deutschen Rechts werden nur dann gegeben sein,
wenn die unter dem Domainnamen abruthare Website geeignet ist, auf den deutschen Markt einzuwirken. An einer solchen Einwirkung fehlt es in der Regel dann,
wenn die auf der Website angebotenen Waren und Dienstleistungen auf dem deut-
schen Markt nicht erhältlich sind oder sich die Website schon aufgrund ihrer
sprachlichen Fassung nur an einen vernachlässigbar kleinen Rezïpientenkreis in
Deutschland richtet.
Siehe die Ausführungen unter h).
Unlauterer Wettbewerb etc.
Ausser den Vorschriften des Kennzeichenrechts i.e.S. können auch die Generalklausel des Gesetzes gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb, § 1 UWG, die Vorschriften
des bürgerlichen Rechts über unerlaubte Handlungen, § 823, 826, 1004 BGB,
sowie § 12 BGB, die Vorschrift zum Schutz von Namensrechten Anwendung finden.
Während § I UWG inhaltlich über die Vorschriften des erweiterten Markenschutzes
nicht wesentlich hinausgeht und auch in seinen Voraussetzungen kaum weiteren
Spielraum bietet als das Markenrecht, sind die deliktsrechtlichen Vorschriften weiter
gefasst: Sie können auch dann Anwendung finden, wenn die betreffenden Handlungen ausserhalb des geschäftlichen Verkehrs vorgenommen worden sind (z.B.
wenn ehrverletzende Behauptungen über ein Produkt oder ein Unternehemen unter
dem entsprechenden Domainnamen in privaten Newsgroups etc. verbreitet werden).
Die Vorschrift über den Namensschutz, § 12 BGB, schützt auch die Namen von
Gebietskörperschaften (Städten etc.); sie kann ferner ergänzend zum Schutz von
Handelsnamen herangezogen werden, In seiner generalklauselartigen Weite ist §
12 BGB z.T. besser geeignet, den Besonderheiten von Konflikten zwischen Domainnamen und betrieblichen Kennzeichen gerecht zu werden, als die Vorschriften
des Kennzeichenrechts i.e.S.. Allerdings besteht z.T. auch die Gefahr einer Ausuferung des Schutzes.
128
Sanktionen
Als Sanktion kommt in erster Linie die Unterlassung der weiteren Benutzung des
Domainnamens, u.U. auch Schadensersatz, in Betracht. Ansprüche gegen die Vergabestelle auf Übertragung des Domainnamens sind in ihrer rechtlichen Begründung zweifelhaft und - soweit ersichtlich - bisher völlig unüblich.
Internationales Privatecht
Wenn ein Unternehmen eine Website unter einem Domainnamen im Internet zum
Abbruf bereit hält und dadurch seine geschäftliche Tätigkeit auf das Gebiet der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland erstreckt, so muss es im Falle von Kennzeichenkollisionen damit rechnen, vor einem deutschen Gericht nach deutschem Recht in Anspruch genommen zu werden.
Dagegen wird in Anlehnung an die kollisionsrechtliche Behandlung der Multi-State
Werbung und der internationalen Verbreitung von Presseerzeugnisse die Anwendung deutschen Rechts dann ausscheiden, wenn die auf der Website angebotenen
Waren und Dienstleistungen von deutschen Abnehmern nicht beschafft werden
können oder sich die Website aufgrund ihrer sprachlichen Fassung nur an einen
vernachlässigbaren Rezipientenkreis in Deutschland richtet.
In Anlehnung an die Rechtsprechung des BGH zur internationalen Zuständigkeit
bei der grenzüberschreitenden Verbreitung von Presseerzeugnissen, derzufolge
unerlaubten Handlungen in Presseerzeugnissen nur dort begangen sind, wo die
Zeitschrift entweder im regelmässigen Geschäftsverkehr oder bestimmu ngsgemäss
und nicht nur zufällig verbreitet wird, wird man auch bei der Benutzung von Domainnamen von einer die Zuständigkeit begründenden unerlaubten Handlung i.S.d.
§ 32 ZPO nur dort sprechen können, wo der Domainname bestimmungsgemäss
und nicht nur technisch bedingt in Erscheinung tritt. Soweit es trotz Abrufbarkeit der
Website zu keiner Ausdehnung der geschäftlichen Tätigkeit auf den deutschen
Markt kommt, weil die beworbenen Waren und Dienstleistungen von deutschen
Abnehmern nicht bezogen werden können oder sich die Website aufgrund ihrer
sprachlichen Fassung nur einen vernachlässigbar kleinen Rezipientenkreis in
Deutschland richtet, wird es daher an einer Zuständigkeit der deutschen Gerichte
fehlen.
Summary
Introductory Remarks
a)
The institution which is responsible for the administration of the TLD "de' in Germany is called DE-NIC. Domain name registrations may not be obtained through
DE-NIC directly, but applications have to be filed via the individual service-providers
or via lntra-Net, an enterprise which is also in charge of collecting of fees. In order
to prevent misuse, it is no longer possible to apply for the reservation of domain
names; the connection to the Internet under the domain name has to be established immediately. In the application, the applicant has to state that to his knowledge,
the domain name is not in conflict with third parties' rights. No additional control
129
measures are provided for; i.e., no substantive examination is carried out and no
'opposition" procedure is foreseen. As far as can be seen, there are no plans for
the time being (summer 97) to introduce major changes to the national system.
Trade Mark Law
Domain names may obtain trademark protection if they fulfill the general requirements. Protection may be obtained without registration, if the domain name is recognized by the interested circles asbeing the distinctive sign for the respective products or services (in German: "Verkehrsgeltung"). The fact that domain names have
to be registered with the domain name registry before they can be used in the Internet is without legal significance in respect of protection as a trade mark.
In view of the fact that there are completely different registration procedures for
domain names and trademarks with no state controlled examination of domain regi-
stration, Sec. 8 (2) German Trademark Act which provides absolute grounds for
refusal of registration as a trademark cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to domain
names. However, the use of domain names that are of such a nature as to deceive
the public or are contrary to accepted principles of morality can be prohibited on the
basis of Sec 1 and 3 of the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG).
Prior use as a domain name may mean that subsequent registration of the name as
a trademark by another person is regarded as having been made in bad faith,
which may result in cancellation of the registration pursuant to Sec. 50 (1) (4) TMA.
lt depends on the circumstances of the particular case, whether bad faith will be
assumed. The following aspects may be of importance for the assessment:
whether the domain name had been used for the same or similar goods or
services;
whether extensive use had been made of the domain name;
whether the applicant of the trade mark has a proper right in the name, or
whether the name is a coined word or very similar to a term which is usual or
descriptive in the given context.
It depends on the perception of the public whether use of a mark as a domain name
will be considered as sufficent in respect of the use requirement. In particular, use
as domain name may be sufficient if the mark is registered for specific Internetrelated services. In other cases, it may be doubtful whether the use requirement will
be deemed as fulfilled by the use of the mark as domain name only.
If (and only if) the mark is used in a manner to which German jurisdiction could be
applicable according to the principles set out infra (I, p, q), should it be deemed
sufficient with regard to the requirement of national use.
There is no doubt that the registering and use of domain names may infringe conflicting trademarks and other distinctive signs. In Germany, the provisions of trade-
130
mark law are generally applied in a generous manner in these cases, with a clear
tendency in favour of trademark and other IP rightsholders.
The provisions of trademark law are not applicable, however, inasfar as a sign is
used solely for the purpose of private communication. In these cases, judicial relief
may only be obtained by taking resort to the provisions of general civil law (see infra, n). The scope of protection granted on the basis of trademark law is also limited
to some extent inasfar as use of the domain name for dissimilar products or services is concerned. However, in these cases it will often be possible to invoke the
provisions granting extended protection for trademarks and other distinctive signs
having a reputation against abuse orimpairement of their distinctive character or repute, which are anchored in the Trademark Act (Secs. 14 (2) (3), 15 (3)), following
the amendments introduced by the new German TMA of 1995.
As a matter of principle, conflicts between a domain name and a trademark or other
distinctive sign will only arise if the commercial activities which are carried out via
the Internet have an effect on the territory where the sign is protected (see infra, I,
p, q). In this respect, "disclaimers" may provide an adequate way to indicate there is
no intention to carry out business on the territory concerned. For example, in case
of a conflict with a German trade mark or trade name, it could be indicated on the
homepage that the products or services offered are not availabe to German customers. In addition, in case that services or other commercial activities are carried out
directly via the Internet, it may be necessary to make the access to the relevnt
website dependent upon use of a password that can be acquired only by Internet
users of those countries in which the domain name does not conflict with a prior
right.
lt is indeed very likely that domain names which are identical or very similar to the
titles or distinctive signs of communication media (journals, newspapers etc.) may
cause a risk of confusion with the latter. However, it does not seem necessary to
introduce into the existing legal system special rules concerning this aspect.
Law of Trade Names
There is currently no case law on the question of how domain names should be
classified in the legal sense. The alternatives to be considered are Sec. 5 (2) first
sentence TMA (besondere Bezeichnung eines Geschäftsbetriebs = commercial designations), according to which trade names - provided that they are inherently di-
stinctive - are protected upon first time use, or Sec. 5 (2) second sentence TMA
(Geschäftsabzeichen = business symbols), according to which protection is only
granted if the sign has aquired secondary meaning. In view of the case law handed
down by the German Federal Supreme Court concerning protection of telegram
addresses, where protection of such addresses was made dependent on the acquisition of secondary meaning, it can be assumed that the same holds true for domain names. Technically speaking, it is true that in addition to their function as addresses, domain names may also serve to identify a company. Yet, this fact alone
cannot be regarded as a sufficient basis for protection of domain names which have
not acquired recognition in the relevant trade circles as being the distinctive sign of
a certain business.
131
k)
lt has been statedabovee (c) that the provisions on absolute grounds for refusal of
trademark registration cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to domain names. The
same holds true in respect of Sec. 18 et seq. of the German Commercial Code
(HGB), according to which firm names that are liable to deceive the public cannot
be registered. However, in accordance with what has been stated under c), the use
of domain names which are deceptive or which would clash with accepted principles of morality and ordre public may be prohibited according to Secs. 1 and 3 of
the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).
I)
The fact that a domain name can be perceived worldwide does not mean that the
user of a domain name may be hold liable for trademark infringement in every
country of the world although the commercial activity remains restricted to domestic
market. The prerequisites for infringement of trademark law or violation of unfair
competition law will only be fullfilled if the website can have a possible effect on the
German market. In general, therefore, an infringement does not exist if products
and services are not available on the German market ont the number of possible
addressees is negligible, depending, for instance, on the language used on the
website.
See answer given under h).
Unfair Competition
In addition to provisions of trademark law and the law of distinctive signs in a narrow sense, the general clause of the law against unfair competition (Sec. 1 UWG)
as well as the provisions of the Civil Code regarding torts (Secs. 823, 826, 1004
BGB) and the provision for protection of name rights (Sec. 12 BGB) may be employed in order to prevent the wrongful use of domain names.
While Sec. 1 UWG does not substantially extend the scope of protection granted to
trademarks and distinctive signs, and while its prerequisites are somewhat restrictive inasfar as use in commerce and common field of activities are concerned, the
protection granted under the provisions of the Civil Code is broader in principle: In
particular, these provisions may also be invoked when the sign is not used in commerce (as, for instance, in the case of defamatory statements made in chat-groups
within the Usenet).
The provision on protection for name rights, Sec. 12 BGB, also protects the names
of cities and other geographic entities. In addition, it can be invoked in favor of trade
names. As this is a provision with a rather broad, general-clause-like character,
Sec. 12 8GB in some respect may constitute a more appropriate basis for solution
of conflicts between domain names and trade names than the provisions of trademark law proper. However, the risk that protection will be granted in an overly generous manner should not be neglected.
Sanctions
The most important sanction for infringements of trade marks and other distinctive
signs by domain names is certainly the prevention of further use of the domain na132
me; in addition, claims for damages may be installed. Claims directed against the
registry concerning the assignment of the domain name to the right holder of a trademark or other distinctive sign are possible in principle, yet their legal justification,
is open to doubt. As far as can be seen, no such claims have been submitted to
German courts until now.
International private law
According to general principles of trademark law, trademarks and commercial designations can be infringed by acts that have been committed in a foreign country if
these acts have a domestic effect (lex bd delicti commissi). Consequently the user
of a domain name that is used for a website that can be called up from German territory and that is directed to German Internet users must expect to be sued for trademark infringement under German law. However, as stated above (under I), no infringement will be held to exist if products and services are not available on the
German market or the number of possible addressees is negligible.
Certain indications as to the prerequisites under which the use of a domain name
constitutes a tortious act can be inferred from the case law handed down by the
Federal Supreme Court on international jurisdiction in connection with cross-border
distribution of press items. In these cases, the principle has been applied that jurisdiction only exists where the newspapers or magazines are distributed in the course
of regular trade or intentionally and not just coincidentally. With respect domain
names, the same rules should apply. Therefore, also as far as jurisdiction is concerned, the fact that a domain name can be perceived by German Internet users is
not sufficient, if the advertised products and services are not available on the German market and/or the number of possible addressees is negligible (see also supra, I, p).
Résumé
Introduction
a)
En Allemagne, les noms de domaines nationaux (domaine de premier niveau «de»)
sont gérés par l'institution DE-NIC. La demande d'attribution d'un nom de domaine
n'est pas effectuée directement par la DE-NIC mais par les fournisseurs de services
ou bien par la société Intra-Net GmbH qui est également chargée de l'encaissement des cotisations. Pour parer d'éventuels abus, il n'est dorénavant plus possible
de réserver des noms de domaine pour des usages ultérieurs. Lors du dépôt de la
demande, le déposant se porte garant qu'il ne porte pas atteinte à des droits de
tiers.
Aucune formalité supplémentaire n'est exigée: il n'existe pas d'examen d'antériorité
ni de possibilité de faire opposition. Aucune réforme du système fondamental national n'est prévue à ce jour (été 1997).
133
Droit des marques
Les noms de domaine peuvent être protégés par te droit des marques s'ils remplissent les conditions générales. La protection peut être acquise même sans enregistrement si le nom de domaine est reconnu auprès des cercles d'utilisateurs intéressés comme signe distinctif pour les biens ou services de l'utilisateur (en allemand "Verkehrsgeltung"). Le simple fait que le nom de domaine soit enregistré auprès de l'organisme d'attribution des noms n'a aucune conséquence juridique pour
la reconnaissance en tant que marque.
Une application par analogie des règles sur la nullité absolue des marques ( 8 II
de la loi sur les marques = MarkenG) aux noms de domaine n'est pas envisageable
car la procédure d'enregistrement des marques auprès de l'office allemand des
brevets est fondamentalement différente de la procédure pour l'enregistrement des
noms de domaine. Les concurrents peuvent recourir aux grands principes du droit
de la concurrence ( 1 et § 3 UWG, loi sur la concurrence déloyale) pour obtenir
l'interdiction d'utiliser un nom de domaine déceptif ou contraire à l'ordre public.
L'usage antérieur d'une dénomination comme nom de domaine peut entraîner la
nullité d'un dépôt ultérieur de marque par un tiers pour mauvaise foi, conformément
au § 50 (1) n°4 MarkenG. La qualification de mauvaise foi dépend des circonstances et est appréciée au cas par cas. Les circonstances suivantes peuvent notamment être prises en compte:
la dénomination comme nom de domaine a été utilisée pour des produits et
services identiques ou similaires;
l'ampleur de l'usage du nom de domaine est considérable;
le déposant de la marque ne dispose d'aucun droit sur la dénomination;
il ne s'agit pas d'une dénomination usuelle ou donnée par les circonstances
pour les produits ou services en cause.
La question de savoir si l'usage de la dénomination comme nom de domaine doit
être considéré comme suffisant au regard de la condition d'obligation d'exploitation
du droit des marques dépend de la perception du public. L'utilisation comme nom
de domaine sera vraisemblablement considérée comme suffisante s'il s'agit d'une
marque enregistrée pour des informations et services sur Internet.
L'usage de la marque ne doit être considéré comme assurant le maintien de la
marque sur le territoire concerné que lorsqu'il intervient de telle façon qu'il doit être
qualifié d'important par les juridictions allemandes en application des règles de
conflit.
Il n'existe aucun doute sur le fait que l'enregistrement et l'usage d'un nom de domaine peut porter atteinte à des marques et autres signes distinctifs identiques. En
droit allemand, les dispositions relatives aux signes distinctifs sont généralement
sont appliquées de manière très généreuse dans ce type de cas, avec une tendance très nette en faveur du titulaire de la marque ou de tout autre signe distinctif.
134
Les dispositions de la loi des marques ne sont pas applicables si le signe est utilisé
à des fins de communication purement privée; dans ces cas, on applique unique-
ment les dispositions du droit civil (voir infra, n). En outre, il est douteux que les
dispositions de la loi sur les marques soient applicables lorsque le nom de domaine
est utilisé pour des produits et services non identiques. Dans ces cas, il sera cependant souvent possible d'avoir recours aux dispositions relatives à la protection
élargie des marques ou des noms commerciaux notoires (
14 (2) n°3; 15 (3)
MarkenG).
En principe, des conflits entre un nom de domaine et un signe distinctif ne surviend ront que lorsque les activités commerciales exercées via Internet ont un effet
sur le territoire où le signe est protégé (y. infra I, p, q). A ce propos, des déclarations de limitation d'activités (disclaimers) peuvent constituer un moyen judicieux
pour indiquer qu'une telle activité n'est pas projetée sur le territoire concerné. Par
exemple, en cas de conflit avec une marque ou un signe distinctif allemand, il pourrait être indiqué clairement sur la homepage que les produits ou services ne sont
pas écoulés sur le marché allemand. En outre, lorsque des services ou autres activités commerciales sont exercées directement via Internet, on pourrait imaginer
que l'accès au site Web ne soit possible que par le biais d'un mot de passe qui ne
serait communiqué qu'aux utlisateurs d'internet des pays dans lesquels aucun risque de collision n'existe avec l'usage du nom de domaine.
Le risque de confusion est certes très grand pour les noms de domaine identiques
au titre ou signe distinctif d'un moyen de communication (journal etc...). Une réglementation spécifique à ce genre de cas n'apparaît cependant pas nécessaire.
Droit des noms commerciaux
Aucune décision jurisprudentielle n'a encore été rendue sur la question de la qualification juridique des noms de domaine. En droit allemand, deux types de qualifica-
tions peuvent être envisagées: soit celle de nom commercial lato sensu
("besondere Bezeichnung eines Geschäftsbetriebs" au sens du § 5, al. 2, 1ère
phrase de la loi sur les marques) soit celle de signe disctinctif commercial
("Geschäftsabzeichen" au sens du § 5, al. 2, 2ème phrase de la loi sur les marques). Dans le premier cas, la protection du nom de domaine commence dès la
première utilisation du nom dans le commerce. Dans le second, la protection ne
commence à courir que lorsque le nom de domaine est reconnu par le public comme signe représentant l'entreprise.
En se référant à la jurisprudence du Bundesgerichtshof relative à la protection des
adresses telex, la qualification de "Geschäftsabzeichen" semble préférable; le
régime serait donc celui d'une protection commençant à courir lorsque le nom a
acquis une certaine notoriété auprès du public, li est certes exact que les noms de
domaine ont également, outre leur fonction d'adresse, une fonction d'identification
semblable à celle du nom ou de la dénomination commerciale. Cela ne suffit cependant pas à assurer aux noms de domaine un droit antérieur opposable dès leur
utilisation.
135
k)
Ainsi qu'il a déjà été noté (c), une application mutatis mutandi des règles relatives
au refus d'enregistrement d'une marque nest pas envisageable aux noms de domaine. Cela vaut également pour les dispositions des § 18 et s. du Code de
commerce allemand (HGB) prohibant toute adjonction à la dénomination sociale
susceptible d'induire en erreur sur la nature et l'étendue de l'activité commerciale
ou les relations d'affaires du propriétaire de l'entreprise. Les dispositions des § 1
et 3 de la loi sur la concurrence déloyale (UWG) peuvent en revanche être appliquées lorsque l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine constitue un acte contraire à l'ordre
public ou de nature à induire en erreur.
I)
Le fait qu'un nom de domaine puisse être en principe perçu dans le monde entier
ne peut avoir pour conséquence que son utilisateur doive comparaître dans chaque
pays devant des tribunaux étrangers et y être jugé selon des lois étrangères alors
qu'il n'exercerait son activité commerciale que dans son propre pays. Les conditions matérielles d'application du droit de la concurrence et des signes distinctifs ainsi que la compétence des tribunaux allemands et l'application du droit allemand ne
seront remplies que si le site Web portant le nom de domaine est susceptible d'avoir un impact sur le marché allemand. Un tel impact n'est généralement pas donné
lorsque les produits ou services offerts sur le site Web ne sont pas disponibles en
Allemagne ou lorsque l'offre ne peut s'adresser qu'à un nombre négligeable de personnes en Allemagne, du fait par exemple de la langue dans laquelle elle est formulée.
Voir les développements sous h).
Concurrence déloyale
Outre les dispositions relatives aux signes distinctifs stricto sensu, la clause générale de la loi contre la concurrence déloyale ( 1 UWG), les dispositions de droit civil sur la responsabilité délictuelle ( 823, 826, 1004 BGB) ainsi que celles sur la
protection du droit au nom ( 12 BGB) peuvent trouver à s'appliquer.
Si le champ d'application du § I UWG ne dépasse pas de beaucoup celui des dispositions relatives à la protection des marques et autres signes distinctifs et ses
conditions d'application sont même dans une certaine mesure assez restrictives
puisque l'usage visé doit être commercial, les dispositions relatives à la responsabilité délictuelle sont en revanche entendues plus largement: elles peuvent en particulier être appliquées lorsque les actions concernées se déroulent en dehors du
domaine commercial (par exemple dans le cas où des affirmations diffamatoires
portant sur des produits ou une entreprise sont diffusées sous un nom de domaine
dans des "chat-groups" privés).
La disposition sur la protection du nom, énoncée au § 12 BGB, protège aussi les
noms des collectivités territoriales (villes, etc.); son application peut être également
étendue à la protection des noms commerciaux. Eu égard à son caractère de clause générale, la disposition du § 12 BGB semble plus apte à tenir compte de la particularité des conflits entre les noms de domaine et les dénominations commerciales que les dispositions sur les signes distinctifs stricto sensu. D'un autre côté, il ne
136
faut pas négliger le risque que la protection accordée sur la base de cette disposition ne devienne trop large.
Sanctions
La première sanction à considérer est l'interdiction d'utiliser ou de continuer à utiliser le nom de domaine, ainsi que, dans certains cas, le versement de dommagesintérêts. Des actions contre l'organisme d'attribution des noms de domaine sont
douteuses dans leur fondement juridique et, à notre connaissance, totalement inhabituelles.
Droit international privé
Une entreprise qui utilise un nom de domaine pour un site Web sur Internet et qui
étend ainsi son activité commerciale au territoire de la République Fédérale d'Allemagne doit s'attendre, en cas de conflits avec d'autres signes distinctifs, à être
jugée devant un tribunal allemand et selon le droit allemand.
En revanche, le droit allemand n'est pas applicable si les biens et services offerts
sur le site Web ne peuvent être obtenus par des clients allemands ou ne peuvent
toucher qu'un cercle négligeable de clients en Allemagne (y. supra I)
De même que, selon la jurisprudence du BGH sur la compétence internationale en
cas de diffusion de journaux au-delà des frontières, le délit n'est commis que là où
le journal est distribué, non par hasard, mais par la voie commerciale ordinaire ou
tout au moins intentionnellement, on ne peut également, en cas d'utilisation de
noms de domaine, parler de délit civil fondant la compétence au sens du § 32 du
code allemand de procédure civile (ZPO) que si le nom de domaine apparaît inten-
tionnellement et pas seulement pour des raisons purement techniques. Ainsi,
lorsque le nom de domaine est certes accessible à des utilisateurs d'internet allemands mais les biens et services dont il est fait la publicité ne sont pas disponibles
sur le marché allemand ou lorsque l'offre ne peut atteindre qu'un cercle négligeable
de clients en Allemagne, la compétence des tribunaux allemands n'est pas fondée.
137
Great Britain
Grande-Bretagne
Grossbritannien
Report Q 143
by the British Group
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
A.
Introduction
lt is arguable that the Internet has done no more than bring to the fore problems
that already exist with trade marks, particularly those whose fame and geographical
spread is increasing. Trade mark law is founded on the two basic principles, known
to our Continental colleagues, of territoriality, that is they apply separately in indi-
vidual countries, and speciality, or specificity, namely that they are attached to
specific goods or services. Domain names on the Internet flout both these basic
fundamental principles. These principles were already under strong pressure even
before the Internet appeared. If a solution can be found to provide a practical compromise for the Internet domain name problem, it may well prove in the longer term
to have much wider application than that.
It will be apparent from the foregoing that there is no cut and dried legal solution
that can be imposed which will provide a fair and equitable solution to the problem.
Inevitably, the best that can be hoped for is a practical working compromise which
is sufficiently acceptable to the majority of trade mark users, and is accepted by the
Internet community.
It is submitted that the aim should be to introduce the minimum of laws and regulations which is necessary to achieve a practical and manageable result. Going beyond this has two disadvantages. The more complex the law, the less likely it is to
be capable of enforcement. Laws that are not enforced are inherently bad. Secondly, the Internet is an unusual system. Its protagonists regard it as something
which should be as free as possible, and it is part of modern culture and expectations that this should be so. It is not for lawyers to stamp unnecessarily on such
sentiments. Speaking more practically, if the operation of the Internet, as at present
constructed, is too circumscribed by rules and regulations, then the current users
will simply set up something else to provide them with the freedom they want.
lt should first be noted that it is more of a problem at present with the international
top level domains (TLDs), particularly with the.com domain, than it is with the national domains. However, the proposed proliferation of international TLDs by the
addition of seven new ones is not thought to be helpful. The proposal to extend the
number of international TLDs displays a misunderstanding of how trade marks op138
erate; all that such proliferation does is to provide increased opportunities for misappropriation of valuable trade marks. On the other hand, if there were say 150 international TLDs, there might be sufficient choice for the system to be generally acceptable. Another possibility advocated by some is for the international TLDs to reflect the 42 classes of the Nice classification, though difficulties are seen with this.
Nevertheless, the problem is not limited to international TLDs.
5.
There are several motives for persons to misappropriate a trade mark as a domain
name. These include:
Persons who register a famous name as a domain name with a view to
causing confusion or making a profit by selling it to the 'rightful" owner.
Persons who hope to cause confusion in, for example a specialised market,
by registering a domain name, commonly one used by a specialist supplier in
another country.
Genuine and accidental situations where two parties are using the same
trade mark on different goods or on different territories.
Split marks (eg Hag).
(y)
Persons who have a grudge or simply wish to be mischievous.
(vi)
Home hobbyists, who do not use their domain name as a trademark, but
nevertheless block a genuine trade mark owner.
So far as the first of these is concerned, and to some extent the second, special
treatment for famous and well known marks (as well as marks with a reputation)
would give very real assistance. So far as the third is concerned, the chances of the
parties agreeing a sensible, practical compromise are considerably greater.
6.
To a limited extent a domain name can be regarded as akin to a telex answer-back.
An important difference, however, is that the telex answer-back is not used when
making the call; rather the telex number is used. Nevertheless, the relevant public
have become familiar with telex answer-backs which may frequently be the same or
very close. Another analogy is freephone telephone numbers, e.g. 0800-AIRWAYS.
Also, there is some similarity with the registration of company names. In the UK and
many other countries, registration of a company name gives no rights against another user; rather it gives solely a right to stop the strictly identical name being reg-
istered as another company name. The registration of a domain name, like the
registration of a company name, does not give a legal right to stop others with
similar (but not identical) names. With both telex answer-backs and company
names there is not a high customer or consumer expectation that similar names
belong to the same party. There is such a high expectation with trade marks. Possibly part of the solution to the domain name problem is for the public to become
more aware that similarity of domain names does not necessarily indicate a relationship between the parties, in the same manner as with similarity of company
names. lt seems inevitable that part of the solution has to be found in a change of
139
consumer expectations. lt is also thought by some likely that improved and more
intelligent search engines will, in the course of time, greatly assist; indeed we may
be dealing with what proves to be a relatively short-term problem.
The registration of trade marks in the UK gives the best available protection, but
protection is also given under the common law. This can be enforced by a so-called
'passing-off' action. To succeed in a passing-off action requires the plaintiff to
prove reputation, confusion (which may be in quite a wide sense), and damage. In
the UK, protection for an unregistered trade name will be enforced in exactly the
same way as an unregistered trade mark, and UK law makes no distinction between the two.
As yet there is relatively little practical experience, in terms of Court decisions. A
number of cases have been commenced, but many are settled or do not get beyond an interlocutory decision. Accordingly, there is relatively little guidance as yet
as to what the law really is in this country and how it will be interpreted. The answers (below) to the questions should be read in that light.
There are the following issues which are not addressed in the questions:
In Harrods, the British High Court decided that it had jurisdiction to hear
cases involving.com domain names.
In Pitman, where the same trade mark had been used for many years by two
companies for different services, the first one to register their domain name
was held entitled to the domain name pitman.co.uk (respecting the 'first
come, first served' principle).
B.
Answers to Questions
a)
The British Group does not think it either helpful or practical to try and regulate
matters at the point where domain names are adopted. Rather, we believe that the
matter has to be dealt with in the same way as unexamined trade marks are dealt
with. Some years ago the British Companies Registry abandoned their policy of requiring persons applying for new company names to show that they had conducted
a trade mark search, because nothing practical was being achieved by such a
measure.
In this country domain names are issued by an organisation called Nominet, which
has set up a dispute resolution panel. Nominet say that there have only been 20 serious disputes, though members of the British Group believe this to be a very considerable under-estimate, as many of the disputes have arisen directly between the
parties without Nominet being aware of this. Nominet have been keen to propose a
"common web site" solution to the problem of two entities wanting the same domain
name, by which the offending web site is owned jointly by the parties and simply
consists of a page indicating that the two entities have an interest in the name. The
page includes links direct to the parties' real web sites.
140
The NSI disputes policy, applicable to the.com TLD is seen as generally helpful to
trade mark owners. The British Group has no experience of the WIPO Mediation
and Arbitration Center.
A domain name can be a suitable candidate for trade mark protection, if it is used
or proposed to be used in the relevant territory in relation to the supply of goods or
services. The mark must also be distinctive. The UK Trade Mark Registry permits
the registration of domain names, including their full TLD, providing they contain a
distinctive component (Registry notice 12 March 1997, TMJ 6166). The TLD element, and sometimes the secondary domain name element, will not be regarded as
distinctive. Thus shell.com will be distinctive for oil products, and hence registrable,
but not for the sale of shells.
The rules on the absolute invalidity of trade marks will apply equally to domain
names which are registered as trade marks.
lt may well be that the prior use of a domain name will be sufficient to attack a subsequent trade mark application that has been made in bad faith, provided of course
that the trade mark applicant was aware of the domain name. Definitive rules for
evaluating what is or is not bad faith have not yet been evolved. lt is likely in any
event that they will develop on a case-by-case basis. lt is worth noting that under
our pre-1994 law, there were many incidences where it was regarded as perfectly
legitimate to register in the UK a mark which was only in use by a third party in another country.
Use of a domain name may be sufficient to qualify as use of a trade mark if products or services are being offered in the territory of the trade mark registration. Possibly there will need to be some extra non-internet link to the territory, but it is not
certain that this will prove to be the case.
Mere use on the Internet does not automatically meet the use requirement. This
area is totally unexplored by the Courts. Possibly there will need to be some extra
non-internet link to the territory, but it is not certain that this will prove to be the
case. Web site owners are well advised to try to keep a record of accesses to their
web site from other countries in order to establish that persons in those countries
are interested in the products or services featured on the web site.
Infringement of a trade mark by a domain name will be judged in exactly the same
way as infringement of a trade mark in any other medium. The classic test of confu-
sion will apply; the goods or services must be the same or similar, and the mark
must be "used in the territory". In Harrods, involving the domain name harrods.com, a prima facie case of infringement of a registered trade mark was found.
It is thought likely that the High Court will apply strict trade mark principles and
therefore will be more inclined to find that internet services generally will infringe a
class 42 registration. The special rules that apply to famous and well known marks,
and marks with a reputation, will equally apply to such marks in relation to an infringement by an Internet domain name.
141
The use of disclaimers etc. on the Internet is at present unexplored. In general, disclaimers do not avoid trade mark infringement. They certainly will not work if the
supplier does in fact sell into the disclaimed territory. There has been a recent case
where a disclaimer persuaded a local magistrates Court not to apply the trade mark
counterfeiting provisions, but the relevant law has since been changed. There is a
genuine difficulty here in that if use of a domain name is prohibited in one country,
at present it seems necessary to remove that name from the whole of the Internet.
As a practical matter, there may be difficulties in the person seeking such removal
obtaining an injunction which is enforceable in the country of residence of the domain name owner.
If this question is referring to a registration of communications apparatus in class 9,
it seems unlikely that mere use of the same name as a domain name will constitute
an infringement. If the question means use of a service mark in class 38, then, unless the domain name owner is providing a communications service for third parties
(eg. an 'Internet phone' service) again there would seem not to be infringement.
Interesting questions arise in relation to a virtual shopping mall for example.
j-m)
There is no special trade name law in the United Kingdom and trade names are
dealt with as unregistered trade marks, as noted in paragraph 6 of the introduction
above. Registration of a company name at the Companies Registry gives virtually
no rights, and the distinctive elements of company names and of trade names
should be registered as trade marks if any real protection is to be obtained for
them.
There is no unfair competition law as such in the United Kingdom (though there is
increasing pressure to introduce one). Other causes of action which might be appropriate include conspiracy, malicious falsehood, libel, and slander of goods. The
only one of these which is likely to be helpful with "domain name grabbing" is conspiracy.
The Court can only order sanctions against the parties to the action. The Court has
ordered the Defendant to hand over his domain name (Harrods). Nevertheless for
this reason Plaintiffs sometimes include the naming authority as a Defendant to any
action so that an injunction can be issued which is effective directly against the
naming authority. In Pitman Nominet was a defendant and agreed to abide by the
Court's decision. In Harrods and Pnnce, NSI was not a defendant, but undertook to
the Plaintiffs to abide by the Court's decision. In general, a successful Plaintiff is
entitled to an injunction to stop the use of the offending name, damages and costs.
A claim for infringement of a trade mark or trade name by an Internet domain name
would be either an infringement of a registered trade mark or a claim in passing off,
as discussed above. Both such causes of action would be characterised as torts (or
delicts) under UK law. Intellectual property rights are territorial in nature, whether
they are statutory or otherwise, and therefore a claim for a breach of a foreign intellectual property right is regarded as "local" under UK Private International laws.
Thus the applicable law will be the law of the country where the tort occurred. In the
case of an Internet domain name, of course, the infringement may be occurring in a
number of different territories. The UK Court would consider that the applicable law
142
in each country would be the one to consider and would expect to hear evidence on
the law of each of those countries if deciding the issue.
q)
The question of jurisdiction again depends on the characterisation of the cause of
action and again this will be characterised as a tort (or delict). The position also depends on whether the tort is occurring inside or outside the territory of the Brussels
Convention (and associated Conventions of Lugano and San Sebastian) which is
essentially the territory of the European Union with a few additions such as Switzerland. However, for issues involving the infringement of a trade mark by a domain
name the infringement is bound to occur within the Brussels Convention territory
(as well as outside it). The Brussels Convention rules concerning the Courts which
have jurisdiction need to be followed, if the Plaintiff then wishes to be able to enforce the decision against the Defendant in other Brussels Convention countries. If
he does not then he can simply apply the local private international laws as to jurisdiction, but with the Internet one would normally wish to be able to enforce any
judgement in other countries if necessary. The rules of the Brussels Convention
state that the Defendant should be sued in the country of his domicile. However,
there is a later rule which provides that the Defendant can also be sued in the
country where the tort or delict has occurred.
Cases:
Harrods:
Prince:
Pit man:
Internet World:
Shetland Times:
Harrods -y- Michael Lawrie (9 December 1996)
Prince Plc -y- Prince Sports Group Inc
Transcript at http://www.prince.com/prince/judge.htm
Pitman Trading Ltd -y- Nominet UK and Pearson Professional Ltd (22
May 1997) (transcript at http://www.nic.ukljudgement.html)
Mecklermedia Corporation and another -y- DC Congress GmbH (CA
18 December 1996, Ch. Div. 7 March 1997 1997FSR627)
Shetland Times -y- Dr J Wills (1997FSR604)
143
Hungary
Hongrie
Ungarn
Report Q 143
in the name of the Hungarian Group
by Dr. Gàbor FALUDI (Chair), Dr. lstvân GÖDÖLLE,
Dr. András SZECSKAY and MiklOs SOVARI
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
a)
The Hungarian Group believes that domain names are not merely addresses, but
indications of entities and/or their products/services/activities (see the hierarchy of
domain names). The problems in respect of domain names may be diminished by
the adoption of stricter registration standards, while preserving the voluntary character and the de facto authority of the registrars. The international endeavours of
WIPO and the possible prevention of domain name grabbing justifies this strategy.
Taking into consideration the above-mentioned voluntary character of the domain
name registration process, we would urge that conflicts arising between domain
name holders and other, affected right holders, be addressed outside the courts in
the first instance. The best and most cost-effective solution lies with the registrars. If
the registrars would be willing to change their passive attitude and, instead, implement internal conflict-solving schemes where doubts arise concerning a domainname prior to its entry in the register, a significant number of legal disputes could
be avoided. We believe applicants should make a declaration with the filing of their
application that - to best of their knowledge - the proposed domain name does not
violate any registered trademark, company/trade name or moral (name) right of
third persons. If the registrar determines that the proposed domain name would
violate a registered domain name, the registration would be rejected. [If any conflict
with earlier trademarks, trade names or other names emerges, the registration of
the domain name can only be cancelled if the affected domain name holder
agrees.] In any event, disputes over domain names - in Hungary - fall within the jurisdiction of courts. Arbitration of a dispute is subject to a mutual stipulation of the
parties under the Hungarian legal system.
We think that an arbitration system - to be introduced by an "INTERNET-ional"
treaty as suggested by WIPO - would be a great achievement considering the particularities and per se international character of domain names.
The Statutes of the Hungarian registrar of domain names provide, among other
things, that the application to register a domain name can be rejected if
144
the decision of courts, or law provides so,
the applicant does not comply with the requirements of the Statutes,
the domain name is unacceptable.
The term "unacceptable" remains unclear, and representatives of the registrar have
not offered a satisfactory explanation as to whether possible conflicts with other
right holders may render a name "unacceptable". Another provision of the Statutes
provides as follows: the registrar shall refrain from addressing any dispute in connection with the use of the domain name. The registration and the use of domain
names shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
Trademark Law
Yes, a domain name can be a suitable candidate for trademark protection if the domain name complies with the requirements (Section 1-5) of the Trademark Act (Act
XI of 1997) and can be connected to specific goods/services.
Generally the rules governing absolute invalidity apply to the registration of domain
names as trademarks. However, one should consider that domain names may only
fall under Section 2, sub-section 2 of the Trademark Act, i.e. such designation can
be protected as "words, combination of words, including personal names and slogans."
Yes, the prior use of a domain name can constitute sufficient use as against the
registration of the same name by another party if the use of the domain name goes
beyond the mere registration with, and the availability of the name holder on, a
given server. If the use is equivalent to the ordinary use of a trademark in respect of
the business of the domain name holder (e.g. offering goods and/or services by
using the domain name), the use will be sufficient to prevent the subsequent registration provided the domain name has become known. With respect to the filing by
another party of an application in bad faith, the criteria will be determined by judicial
practice since our Trademark Law is a brand new legislative product (Act Xl of
1997).
Yes, if actual business involving specific goods/services is carried out using the
domain name (see our answer to question d).
No, the requirement of maintaining use is not automatically met by the global nature
of the Internet. Such requirement is met only in those territories where the domain
name holder offers the relevant services/goods. The domain name holder may, for
example, exclude certain territories from its sphere of business over the Internet
(i.e. by notifying customers that its services are "for European residents only"). The
principle of "reasonableness" does not allow further requirements.
Yes, an Internet domain name can infringe another party's trademark, provided
there is actual use of the domain name as a trademark (i.e. the name holder actually offers goods/services: see our answer to question f).
145
In conformity with our responses to f) and g) above, the domain name holder reasonably can be expected to provide information on his home page concerning the
available territories, how the name is used and the relevant services/goods that are
being provided. Any trademark owner can rely on such information as a vital piece
of evidence.
The mere use (indication) of a domain name, if it is identical with or similar to a third
party's trademark registered for means of communication, is not sufficient to justify
infringement. In order to meet the necessary prerequisites, it must be established
that the domain name holder is offering communication services identical or similar
to the service(s) of the trademark owner.
Tradename law
There is no specific tradename regulation in Hungary.
A tradename can be a company name registered by the competent courts.
(In this case, conflicts are in principle resolved on a "first come, first served"
basis.) This legal remedy does not provide protection against confusing
similarity.
A tradename also can be a name of a legal entity used without registration,
irrespective of any registered company names. In this case, the Civil Code
rules applicable to ordinary names in the framework of moral rights would
apply.
A tradename can be an indication of goods/services without trademark registration. In this case, the rules of the Act on Unfair Business Behaviour will
apply.
In all three cases, the names may consist partly or entirely of ordinary family names
(e.g. Sausage Pick from Szeged, Confiserie Gerbaud etc.).
Based on the general information provided, the answer is yes. The registration and
use of an Internet domain name may be sufficient to create a trade name right, provided the domain name is used beyond the extent of an ordinary address. If a private person, not engaging in any business as such, uses the Internet for E-mail
purposes, his name will not be a trade name. But if this person offers a service to
the public via the Internet, whether on a profit or non-profit basis, the domain name
may become a tradename.
The absolute invalidity concept may apply in certain cases involving conflicts with
public law (e.g. prohibition of the use of state symbols), the Civil Code (violation of
moral right), or the Act on Unfair Business Behaviour (prohibition of any confusing
indication).
I)
Taking into consideration that the laws protecting a tradename operate on the principle of territoriality, there must be a specific relationship between Hungary and the
activities of the server using the domain name. If the activities of the domain name
146
holder have nothing to do with Hungary or any addressees residing in Hungary (i.e.
the use of the name has no consequences in Hungary), the provisions protecting
Hungarian tradenames should not apply.
Our answer is identical to that given in response to question h).
Unfair competition and tort
We offer the following introductory remark before responding to the questions: The
"tort" in Hungary has a statutory legal basis arising from the Hungarian Civil Code
(delictual liability). The Civil Code is the underlying statute from which all intellectual
property legislation is derived, and this is expressly stated in each and every act.
Therefore, the general rules of tort may emerge in every case, irrespective of
whether the dispute involves a trademark or tradename.
As far as the general rules of the Act on Unfair Business Behaviour are concerned,
our answer is "yes", as the Act includes comprehensive provisions prohibiting any
unfair business behaviour and the unlicensed use of any indication or name from
which the competitor, or the goods/services thereof, can be recognized (Sections 2
and 6 of Act LVII of 1996 on the Prohibition of Unfair Business Behaviour and
Limitation of Competition).
Establishing "bad faith" is not required. The elements of the tort of negligence under
the Civil Code are all that need be established. The rules of unfair competition are
based on the notion of "strict liability".
We are confident that against "domain name grabbing" suitable steps can be taken
on the basis of the Hungarian Civil Law. lt can be "grabbed" by special provisions of
the trademark law or the more general rules concerning tradename. Alternatively,
the extremely comprehensive rules applicable to torts or unfair competition may
cover the domain name grabbing if the name has any business relevance or its appropriation affects the moral name rights of a person.
There is at present no provision in the Penal Code which could be applied to
"domain name grabbing". If the illegal use of a domain name involves the identify of
a product (which ordinarily is not the case), the provision on the "use of false indication of products" might be applicable.
Sanctions
The list of sanctions to be ordered is extensive: the court can be requested to establish the violation, stop and enjoin the respondent from using the unlawful domain
name, take the enrichment from the infringer. Damages also can be claimed. While
the court has no power to order the transfer of the respondent's domain name to
the plaintiff, the prevailing sanctions seem to be sufficient.
international private law
The answer depends on which statute serves as the legal basis for the dispute. If
the basis is the trademark law, the "lex loci protectionis" applies (Section 20, sub147
section 2, Law Decree 13 of 1979 on the International Private Law). If the basis is
the violation of a moral right (Civil Code), the "lex loci delicti comissii" or, if it is more
favourable to the right holder, the Hungarian Law, will apply (Section 10, subsection 2 of the said Law Decree). In an international tort case, the lex loci delicti
comissii applies or, if it is more favourable to the injured party, the law of the state
where the damage occurred applies except if the residence of the injured party and
the respondent are the same, in which event the lex domicilii will be the applicable
rule (Section 32, sub-sections 1-3 of the said Law Decree). If the violation affects
the registered name of a legal entity, the lex personae applies, which means the
law of the state where the injured legal entity is registered (Section 18, sub-sections
1 and 2 of the said Law Decree).
q)
As to the forum, there is nothing in the law specifying that the Hungarian authorities
shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the types of cases mentioned under p) (see:
Section 55 of the said Law Decree).
Summary
The Hungarian Group believes that domain names are not merely addresses, but indica-
tions of entities and/or their products/services/activities (see the hierarchy of domain
names). The problems in respect of domain names may be diminished by the adoption of
stricter registration standards, while preserving the voluntary character and the de facto
authority of the registrars. We think that an arbitration system - to be introduced by an
"INTERNET-ional' treaty as suggested by WIPO - would be a great achievement, taking
into consideration the particularities and the per se international character of domain
names.
A domain name can be a suitable candidate for trademark protection if the domain name
complies with the requirements ( Sections 1-5 ) of the Trademark Act (Act XI of 1997) and
can be connected to specific goods/services.
The registration and use of an Internet domain name may be sufficient to create a trade
name right provided the domain name is used beyond the extent of an ordinary address.
We are confident that against "domain name grabbing" suitable steps can be taken on the
basis of the Hungarian Civil Law.
Résumé
Selon l'opinion du Groupe Hongrois, les noms de domaine ne servent pas uniquement
d'adresse, mais aussi de moyen de distinguer les produits/services/activités (cf. la hiérarchie des noms de domaine). Les problèmes concernant les noms de domaine peuvent
être diminués par l'application des conditions d'enregistrement plus strictes. Pourtant, le
caractère volontaire d'enregistrement et l'autorité de facto des institutions d'enregistrement doivent être sauvegardés. À notre avis, en considération de la particularité et du caractère international des noms de domaine, l'établissement d'un système d'arbitrage par
148
une convention "INTERNET-ional" - selon la proposition de I'OMPI - signifierait un progrès
important.
Les noms de domaine peuvent être protégés comme marques à condition qu'ils répondent
aux exigences de la loi sur les marques (Articles I à 5 de la Loi No. Xl de 1997) et qu'ils
soient caractéristiques à certains produits et services.
L'enregistrement et l'utilisation d'un nom de domaine peuvent être suffisants à créer un
droit au nom commercial supposant un usage qui surpasse son utilisation comme adresse
habituelle.
Nous sommes convaincus qu'on peut faire face à la pratique dénommée "captation de
noms de domaine" sur la base du Code Civil hongrois.
Zusammenfassung
Die ungarische Gruppe ist der Meinung, dass die Domain-Namen nicht nur als Adressen
gelten, sondern auch als Kennzeichnungen von Waren/Dienstleistungen! Tätigkeiten dienen (siehe die Hierarchie der Domain-Namen). Die Probleme betreffend der DomainNamen könnten durch Einführung von strengeren Voraussetzungen der Eintragung vermindert werden, wobei jedoch die freiwillige Eigenart und die de facto Autorität der Eintragungsstelle aufzubewahren sind. Wir glauben, dass ein durch ein "INTERNET-ionales"
Abkommen einzuführendes Streitschlichtungsverfahren, wie es im Rahmen der Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum (WIPO) vorgeschlagen wurde, mit Rücksicht auf die Eigenarten und das per se internationale Gepräge der Domain-Namen eine bedeutsame
Errungenschaft wäre.
Domain-Namen können als Marken geschützt werden, wenn sie die Erfordernisse des
Markengesetzes (Gesetz Xl vom 1997, § 1-5) erfüllen und gleichzeitig der Kennzeichnung von bestimmten Waren oder Dienstleistungen dienen.
Die Eintragung und der Gebrauch eines Domain-Namens können unter der Bedingung
ausreichen, ein Handelsnamensrecht zu begründen, dass der Domain-Name über den
Umfang einer gewöhnlichen Adresse benutzt wird.
Wir sind davon überzeugt, dass die systematischen bösgläubigen Registrierungen von
Domain-Namen ("domain name grabbing") aufgrund des ungarischen Zivilrechts angefochten werden können.
149
Ireland
frIande
Irland
Report Q 143
by the Irish Group
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
(a)
The top-level domain for Ireland is '.ie', which in common with other top-level domains is
administered by a naming authority which is the Computing Services Department of University College Dublin ('the Authority").
The Authority has published a policy document regarding registration procedures and
other matters. Regarding availability of a domain name, the policy document states as
follows:
"3.4: A domain name shall correspond with reasonable closeness to the name of the applicant or to an abbreviation or trade mark by which the applicant is well known.
3.5: Where the proposed name is either already in use, or appears likely to be claimed
by another applicant, another name shall be chosen. For example, such names as IBM. lE,
DUBLIN. lE, IRFU. lE and RUGBY. lE are protected by this requirement.
3.6: Where the proposed domain name is in the opinion of the naming authority likely to
lead to confusion, another name shall be chosen."
An application to register a domain name can be refused on the grounds that it fails to
satisfy, among others, the requirements of 3.4-3.6 above.
Regarding disputes, there is no domain name disputes policy as such. However, if a trade
mark or domain name holder feels aggrieved by the registration of a particular domain
name, the Authority will on request identify the holder of the offending domain name to the
aggrieved party. If the matter is brought to the attention of the Authority before the new
domain name is effectively in use, the Authority may revoke the registration. However,
otherwise the Authority will maintain the registration until the parties have reached a
resolution among themselves, whether in court or otherwise.
150
Trade mark law
Cari a domain name be a suitable candidate for trade mark protection, and if so,
under which conditions? Please elaborate on the specific problems or peculiarities
which may arise in that respect.
Under Irish Patents Office ("the Office") practice, it is likely that domain names can
be suitable candidates, prima facie, for registration as trade marks under the Trade
Marks Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act"). However, there has been no published practice on
this point by the Office and we are not aware that any such applications have yet
been examined by the Office.
However, the United Kingdom Trade Marks Registry has published a practice note
on the registrability of domain names as marks under the UK Trade Marks Act 1996
(in Trade Marks Journal No. 6166 at page No. x - 12 March 1997). This is relevant
as the 1996 Act is virtually identical to the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Office
often takes treats the practice of the UK Registry as highly persuasive.
In the practice note, the UK Registry states that "it is possible for goods and services to be offered for sale in the UK over the Internet under a domain name. The
Registrar therefore takes the view that such signs may constitute trade marks and,
subject to the usual criteria, maybe registered as trade marks".
By the phrase "usual criteria", it is assumed that this means that as long as a domain name can come within the statutory definition of a "trade mark", and is not
contrary to any absolute/relative ground for refusal, it is registrable as a trade mark.
The practice note goes on to state that the endings of the domain names (e.g.
.com, .uk, .org) along with the other parts of the uniform resource locator ("URL")
www address (e.g. http// , www and @) should be treated as devoid of any distinctive character for all goods or services put on the market via computer networks.
However, if the sign as a whole contains a distinctive element, then subject to the
usual criteria, it may be accepted prima facie as a valid trade mark.
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trade marks also apply to domain names?
The absolute grounds for refusal are contained in Section 8 of the 1996 Act, which
states as follows:
"8.-(1) The following shall not be registered signs which do not satisfy the requirements of section 6(1)1
trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character,
("Section 6(1) states: "In this Act, a "trade mark" means any sign capable of being represented graphically which is capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other
undertakings.")
151
(C)
trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications 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,
(d)
trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which
have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide
and established practices of the trade:
Provided that, a trade mark shall not be refused registration by virtue of paragraph
(b), (c) or (d) above if, before the date of application for registration, it has in fact
acquired a distinctive character as a result of the use made of it.
(2)
A sign shall not be registered as a trade mark if it consists exclusively of
-
the shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves, or
the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, or
the shape which gives substantial value to the goods.
(3)
A trade mark shall not be registered if it is -
contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of public policy or
accepted principles of public morality, or
of such a nature as to deceive the public (for instance as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service).
(4)
A trade mark shall not be registered if or to the extent that
its use is prohibited in the State by any enactment or rule of law or by
any provision of Community law.
the application for registration is made in bad faith by the applicant."
As already indicated, no specific practice of the Irish Patents Office has issued in relation
to registrability of domain names and we are not aware of any applications for registration
of domain names as trade marks which have been examined by the Office. However, it is
clear that the absolute grounds for refusal contained in Section 8 will apply to domain
names as well as to conventional trade marks.
As will be noted, the proviso to Section 8(1) recognises that marks which are prima fade
contrary to either of Section 8(1)(b) to (c), although not Section 8(1)(a), may acquire distinctiveness through use and be registrable. The question arises as to what kinds of use of
a domain name would satisfy this proviso. Again, there has been no practice yet on this
point, however it is unlikely that the mere registration of a domain name in a top-level domain which is to designate an IP address would constitute sufficient use. The proviso en152
visages an objective test of the mark having acquired in fact a distinctive character as a
result of the use made of it. lt is possible, however, that use of the domain name on a web
site and in advertising, publicity and publications as part of an URL could constitute use
for the purposes of the proviso.
(d)
Can the prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark constitute sufficient use in order to qualify the subsequent filing by another party of said trade
mark as a filing in bad faith. If so, what are the requirements for such sufficient use?
Under the 1996 Act, trade mark registration rights are granted to the first person to file an
application for registration of the mark and not the first person to use the mark.
In the context of the 1996 Act, bad faith is an absolute ground for refusal (see Section 8(4)
in question (c) above), not a relative ground, and covers for example where an application
is made dishonestly, or for a very wide specification of goods/services, or where the sign
incorporates the name of a famous individual.
Relative grounds for refusal or opposition are mainly based on earlier filed Irish or Community trade mark applications or registrations, not on use. However, there are two instances where earlier use can provide rights:
Where an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade
is protected by any rule of law, in particular the law of passing off (which is a
common law, unregistered user right).
Where a later applicant can show "honest concurrent use" of the earlier
mark.
lt is unclear as to what would constitute sufficient use for the purposes of 1 and 2 above,
however, it is considered that use of the domain name on a web site and as part of an
URL on a website, or in advertising or printed matter would constitute sufficient use if such
use was over a considerable period of time.
It is very likely that the mere registration of a domain name in the lE or COM top-level domains would not constitute use of the domain name for this purpose.
(e)
Can the use of a domain name as an IP-address of a server on which products
and/or services are offered for which the domain name is registered as a trade
mark qualify as maintaining use of that trade mark?
Under Section 51(1) of the 1996 Act, grounds for revocation of a registered trade mark
include the following:
(a)
that within the period of five years following the date of completion of the
registration procedure it has not been put to genuine use in the State, by the
proprietor or with his consent, in relation to the goods or services for which it
is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use;
153
(b)
that such use has been suspended for an interrupted period of five years,
and there are no proper reasons for non-use.
To our knowledge, no domain names have been registered as trade marks in Ireland under the Trade Marks Act 1996. Accordingly, in the absence of such registrations and in the
absence of any clear practice or experience in dealing with domain name applications by
the Office, it is difficult to state the answer to this question.
However, it is considered that the mere use of a domain name as an IP (internet protocol)
address of a server on which products and br services are offered for which the domain
name is registered as a trade mark could in principle constitute use sufficient to maintain
the trade mark. However, such use would need to be "genuine" and it is as yet unclear
how this word would be interpreted in the context of domain names in the absence of any
guidance by the Courts or the Office.
(f,)
Is the requirement that maintaining use must occur in the territo,y of the trade mark
automatically met as a consequence of the global nature of the internet / If not,
please describe which further requirements must be met?
As use of the mark must be "genuine" for the purposes of Section 51(1). it is likely that the
domain name owner would have to show that goods were actually sold or services rendered in Ireland and not that the web site was merely accessible by dial up internet access
from Ireland.
(g)
Can an internet domain name infringe another party's rights to a trade mark? If so,
under which conditions? Please elaborate on the scope of the protection of trade
marks against domain names and deal in your answer with famous and well-known
trade marks.
The acts which can be prevented by the owner of a trade mark registered under the 1996
Act are contained in Section 14, as follows:
"14.-(1) A person infringes a registered trade mark if 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 the those for which it is registered.
(2)
A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign
where because -
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
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, which includes the
likelihood of association with the trade mark.
154
(3)
A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign
which -
is identical with or similar to the trade mark, and
is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for
which the trade mark is registered,
where the trade mark has a reputation in the State and the use of the sign being
without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive
character or repute of the trade mark."
Importantly in the context of domain names, Section 14(4) goes on to state that for
the purposes of Section 14, a person uses a sign if, in particular, he -
'(a)
(b)
offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market ... .or offers or
supplies services under the sign;
E
J
uses the sign on business papers or advertising."
With regard to well known marks, Section 61(2) provides:
"(2)
[T]he proprietor of a trade mark which is entitled to protection under the Paris
Convention as a well known mark is entitled to restrain by injunction the use in the
State of a trade mark 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."
As previously stated, there has been no Irish caselaw to our knowledge dealing with the
above. However, with regard to Section 14, it is clearly possible that the use of a domain
name, either on a web site or in advertising or publications could constitute an infringement of a registered trade mark. In addition, if a mark can come within Section 61(2), it is
also possible that a remedy may be available to the owner of a well-known mark which
forms part of a domain name.
lt is also possible that use of a domain name on a website could give rise to an action at
common law for the tort of passing off in Ireland. Normally in order to succeed in an action
for passing off, a "goodwill" must be established in Ireland by carrying on business in this
country, or at the very least, the presence of customers. "Goodwill" has been described as
the attractive force which brings in custom. In order to succeed in an action for passing off,
the plaintiff will have to prove at least the following:
A misrepresentation
made by a trader in the course of trade,
to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by him,
155
which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader (in the sense
that it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence), and
which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the
action is brought or (in a quia timet action) will probably do so.
With regard to the potential argument that web sites do not constitute trade in Ireland and
are not capable of attracting goodwill, the comments of the Supreme Court in a leading
Irish case on passing off (C&A Modes y. C&A (Waterford) Limited [1976] IR 198, 212 per
Henchy J) may be relevant:
"Can it be said that in those circumstances that, because the plaintiffs have no direct retailing outlet in the Republic [of Ireland], they have no protectable goodwill in the Republic? In my opinion, the answer is "No". Goodwill does not necessarily stop at a frontier.
Whether in a particular area a plaintiff has a goodwill which is liable to be damaged by the
unlawful competition resulting in a passing off is a question of fact and degree. What has
to be established for the success of a plaintiff's claim in an action such as this is that by
his business activities - be they by direct selling within the State or otheiwise - he has
generated within the State a property right in a goodwill which will be violated by the
If there are in this State sufficient customers of a plaintiff's business to
passing off
justify his claim to have a vested right to retain and expand that custom, then there is ample authority in principle and in the decided cases for the conclusion that, no matter where
the plaintiff's business is based, he is entitled to be protected against its being taken away
or dissipated by someone whose deceptive conduct is calculated to create a confusion of
identity in the minds of existing or potential customers."
Here, although not trading in Ireland, the plaintiffs (a chain of department stores in the
United Kingdom had advertised extensively in Ireland and there was evidence that a number of people from the Republic of Ireland worked in the shop in Belfast (Northern Ireland)
or travelled there from the Republic of Ireland to shop.
(h)
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that
his use of the domain name constitutes infringement of a trade mark in territories
where the domain name holder has no commercial interests? Please elaborate on
the contents of, e.g. ,disclaimers.
It is possible for a website owner to block by technical means access to the site. This is
done by using a reverse domain name lookup to inquire from which top-level country do-
main the person accessing the website is located. For example, consider a situation
where an Irish registered trade mark is infringed by use of the mark on a website at
www.infringer.com. Pursuant to a settlement between the parties, the operator of infringer.com agrees to block all users accessing from .ie., the Irish top-level domain. However, this is not a totally accurate method as, for example, Irish internet users on .com or
.net will not be blocked. However, it may nevertheless be a reasonably attractive method
of settling a dispute.
It is possible for an internet service provider to block access to its subscribers by reference
to specific URL's, but this can be circumvented by the web site owner hosting his web
pages on "mirror" web sites. Mirror site hosting is a reasonably common practice particularly on popular sites and could be easily adopted by infringers.
156
Regarding disclaimers on a web site like "this product/service is not available to persons in
Ireland" or "This website is not intended to be accessed from Ireland"), it is considered
that such a disclaimer may be of little effect, due to the strict nature of the test of trade
mark infringement under the 1996 Act. (See (g) above).
Firstly, in spite of the disclaimer, the offending sign will still be arguably used in the course
of trade by use on the web site. Secondly, as stated in Section 14(4) of the 1996 Act,
"use" includes using the sign on "advertising" and "offering or exposing goods for sale,
or offering or supplying services under the sign" which
putting them on the market
may be broad enough to include a situation where a disclaimer is used.
However, it depends on whether a court would hold that the website was trading in the
State or advertising in the State, which is still a very unclear question.
(j)
What is the answer to the question raised above under 2.13 as to the use of a domain name in internet for whatever product or service if that domain name is identical or similar to a third party's mark which has been registered for means of communication?
lt is possible that if the offending sign is being used on the website in relation to identical
services, or similar services (and there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the
public, which includes the likelihood of association), that an action for infringement could
be available.
Trade name law
The only statutory trade name law in Ireland relates to the registration of company names
under the Companies Acts 1963-1990 and the registration of Business Names under the
Registration of Business Names Act 1963.
However, neither the registration of a company name under the Companies Acts nor the
registration of a Business Name provide the registrant with any proprietary rights in that
name or any right to sue a third party for using an identical or similar name. Statutory proprietary rights will only arise if the name has been registered as a trade mark under the
1996 Act.
If, however, the name has been used in the State and has built up a reputation and goodwill, the name may be protectable under the common law by the tort of passing off. (See
(g) above). lt is in the context of the tort of passing off therefore that the following questions will be answered:
(J)
Can the registration and use of an internet domain name be sufficient to create, and
maintain, a trade name right to the second-level domain name included therein? Is,
in view of the global nature of the internet, any use of a domain name which includes the company name of the domain name holder sufficient? if not, which additional requirements need to be fulfilled?
lt will depend on whether there the mark has a reputation and goodwill in Ireland.
157
However, it is unclear, in the absence of guidance by the courts, whether any use of a
domain name which includes the company name of the domain name holder would be
sufficient.
(k)
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trade names also apply to domain names?
There are no rules regarding "absolute invalidity" in the context of the tort of passing off.
(I)
Does the global nature of the internet imply that the normal criteria of infringement
of a trade name apply to any use of an identical or similar domain name? Or must
there be a specific relation (of some sort) between your countiy and the use of the
domain name (or the offerings which are made on the server of which the domain
name is the address?
At the very least, the web site must be accessible from Ireland and it would be likely that
evidence of access, advertising or sales would be required. In addition, it is likely that evidence of confusion would be required.
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that
his use of the domain name in fringes another party's trade name in territories where
the domain name holder has no (significant) commercial interests? Again: would
the use of the disclaimer be effective? If so, please elaborate on the contents of
such disclaimer?
In the context of passing off, a disclaimer may be more effective than in the context of
trade mark infringement as there is a requirement of misrepresentation.
Unfair competition
Can the registration and use of a domain name which is identical or similar to another party's trade mark and/or trade name be successfully attacked on the basis of
general rules of unfair competition or tort? If so, under which conditions? If an element of bad faith is required, please elaborate on the nature thereof and provide
examples. please discuss the legal possibilities to deal with the practice generally
referred to as "domain name grabbing".
There is no general law of unfair competition in Ireland and any such cases must be dealt
with under the general tort of passing off.
Sanctions
Which sanctions can a court order against the holder of a domain name which infringes the trade mark or trade name rights of another party or which is otherwise
unlawful vis-à-vis said party? Please indicate whether the court has the power to directly order the transfer of such domain name from the infringing party to the trade
mark! trade name owner?
The following sanctions may be available:
158
Trade Marks Act 1996:
All relief by way of damages, injunctions, accounts of profits or otherwise is available in an
action for infringement of a registered trade mark as would be available in respect of any
infringement of any other property right.
Tort of passing off:
Injunction, damages, account of profits.
International private law
Which rules of the international private law of Ireland apply in order to determine
the applicable law in a dispute regarding the infringement of a trade mark or trade
name by an internet domain name?
Ireland is a member state of the European Union and by the Contractual Obligations
(Applicable Law) Act, 1991 has ratified The Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to
Contractual Obligations ("the Rome Convention"). The purpose of the Rome Convention is
to harmonise the member states' laws relating to contract law.
However, where the contract is outside the Rome Convention, entered into before ist
January 1992, or where the issues relate to other than contract law, Irish domestic conflict
of law rules apply. In this regard, the proper law is the law which has the closest and most
real connection with the contract or transaction or in other words, is the system of law by
which the parties intended the contract to be governed or, where their intention is neither
expressed nor to be inferred from the circumstances, the system of law with which the
transaction has its closest and most real connection.
Which international private law rules apply in order to determine which court is
competent to deal with the above mentioned dispute?
By the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgements Act 1988, Ireland acceded
to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters ("the Brussels Convention"), which along with the Lugano Convention
permits "free movement" of judgements within not just the European Union, but also the
wider European Economic Area.
At common law, any person may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Irish courts provided
that personal service of an originating summons has been effected on him. If the defendant is an Irish company, service and exercise of jurisdiction can be effected by service of
proceedings at the registered office of the company under the Companies Acts 19631990. Foreign incorporated companies with a place of business in Ireland may also be
served under the Companies Acts 1963-1990. However, if the said foreign company has
not registered as an external company, the fact that the company carries on business
within Ireland per se does not render it liable to service. Furthermore, the Irish courts may
exercise jurisdiction in several specific cases, even though the defendant is not present in
159
the jurisdiction, but as the case is so closely connected with Ireland or with Irish law, there
is ample justification for the case being tried in Ireland.
Summary
No specific practice or experience has yet arisen under the Irish Trade Marks Act 1996
(which came into effect on ist July 1996) relating to the registration of domain names as
trade marks. However, it is possible that, as long as domain names satisfy the statutory
requirements of registration, for example not in breach of "absolute" grounds for refusal
i.e. are distinctive, not generic or descriptive etc., they may be registrable as trade marks.
Regarding use of domain names, again, there has not yet been any practice or experience
in this regard under the Trade Marks Act 1996. However, it is likely that use of domain
names in respect of web sites and advertising may constitute sufficient use, although
mere use of a domain name as an Internet Protocol address of a server on the internet will
probably not suffice.
There has been on caselaw or practice on the subject, but it is likely that use of a domain
name, either on a web site or in advertising, could constitute statutory infringement of a
registered trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1996. Furthermore, this could also constitute passing off (a common law tort) and be actionable at common law.
lt is unlikely that disclaimers would be effective in a web site, although there has been no
caselaw or practice on this point and the matter is therefore unclear.
160
Israel
Israel
Israel
Report Q 143
by the Israeli Group
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
The law applicable in Israel in case of infringement of IP rights in any Trade Mark,
Trade Name of Domain name, or by any of these of a domain name is described in
the following paragraphs.
The position of the Israel Group of the AIPPI is that these IP rights can be protected
effectively only through legislation to be based on international harmonised standards, to be enforced by the national courts. lt is true that international activities to
prevent illicit use of IP either by registration or by removing infringing names may
assist in the protection of the said rights, it seems however that because of the
many difficulties in executing any program of international registration of prior examination, such measures could not, by themselves, attain the end sought. Thus,
any measures taken by international organizations are welcome, but it is only the
protection by the court, initiated through the act of the aggrieved person, that certain assurance of the protection of a rights infringed can be achieved.
Applicability of Trademark Law to Domain Names
A domain name as such is not eligible, under Israel law, for registration as a trade
mark, as long as it serves as an address only and is not used (or intended to be
used) in relation to goods or services. Eligibility may arise if orders for goods and
services may be directed to the address, or at least enquiries concerning the goods
and services in relation to which the mark is used, are directed to it.
Any domain name eligible for registration under (a) above is capable of registration,
as a "mark" may consist of letters, numerals, words or other signs or a combination
thereof.
The fact that a trade mark is a part of a domain name does not enhance the qualifi-
cation of the domain name registrability, unless the conditions referred to in (a)
above are satisfied.
A Domain Name may enjoy Trademark Law protection, registration as provided in
that law must is required. However, protection of the domain name as such,
whether registered as a trade mark or in a domain name registry or not registered
at all may be attained under other laws, as described hereinafter.
161
3.
Absolute invalidity of Domain Names for trademark registration
Once a domain name qualifies for trade mark registration, such registration will be made
under the rules and conditions applicable to trademark registration. Therefore, the rules
concerning absolute invalidity, such as section 6 of the Paris Convention and Art. 11 of
TRIPS, will apply. The same rules will also apply if the registration is sought on the basis
of a registration abroad.
Domain name use establishing priority of trade mark use
The use of a domain name may preclude the registration of a trade mark under a subsequent application by another person, under Section 12 of the Trade Mark Ordinance which
provides that
"The Registrar may refuse an application for registration of a trade mark identical
with or resem6ling the name or 6usiness name of another person, or containing a
name identical or resembling as aforesaid, if the mark is likely to deceive the public
or to cause unfair competition."
lt is our opinion that under the circumstances where trade is carried out through the domain name site, the domain name can be considered as a business name, and a trade
mark.
lt should be noted that a trade mark can be removed from the registry if unfair competition,
deceit or fraud have been established.
lt should further be noted that the subsequent registration of a trade mark by another person will not prevent the continual genuine use of the domain name by its holder, as this
can be considered the name of his place of business.
Applications for rectification of the register of a trade mark registered in bad faith can be
made during opposition proceedings within three months after acceptance of the application, or within five years from the date of registration.
Clearly, the registration of the domain name in a domain name registry does not create
any priority right under the Paris Convention. lt may, however, serve as evidence for the
date on which a person took formal steps to acquaint the public about his business address, or the use in public of the trade mark, which forms a part of the domain name.
Infringement by a domain name of a trade mark
The use of a domain name can be considered infringement of a trade mark if it causes
confusion as to the place of business of the trade mark owner, or in connection with goods
and services of the same description, in which the trade mark owner deals. lt must be
noted that the above applies only to infringement of a trade mark registered in Israel and
the domain name indicated as address in Israel or the place of business of the trade mark
owner. We are not in a position to tell whether the use of a domain name will constitute an
infringement of a trade mark in all countries in which it is registered. However, it seems
that the use of the domain name may constitute competition or an act of passing off, as
described hereinafter.
162
Infringement by a domain name of famous or well known trade marks may be protected
against by the Protection of the Consumer Law or the law of torts, on the ground that
confusion is caused by the use of the domain name.
Maintaining use of a trade mark by use of the domain name
The use of a domain name of a site on which products and/or services are offered for
which the domain name is registered as a trade mark would normally qualify as maintaining the use of that trade mark only if actually a business with customers with a place of
business in Israel is carried out through that address. Otherwise the use of the address on
the internet and its directories would not even be considered as carrying on advertisement
activities in Israel.
Disclaimers by domain name holder
lt seems that the domain name holder cannot take any measures to prevent by disclaimers or other declarations by him that the use of the domain name by him on the internet or
otherwise will not constitute an infringement of trade marks registered in countries in which
he does not carry on any business. lt is our opinion that if the domain name creates any
confusion in any territory, or confuses users of the internet, the fact that some notice excludes the possibility to establish any trade relations with the site, does not diminish the
fact that in the first place confusion has been created. Further, the existence of the domain
name precludes the trade mark owner from using it in his domain name.
The use on the Internet of a domain name identical or similar to a communication means trade mark
As described above, the use of a domain name identical to the trade mark of products or
services of a similar description may be considered unfair competition, passing off or trade
mark infringement. Therefore, more so, if the domain name is the same or similar to the
name of a product which is offered, traded or transmitted on the Internet itself, or is the
subject matter of an electronic bulletin board (BBS). Here we have two marks used on the
same "territory".
Trade Names Law
A right in a trade name as such can be created by its use, for the purpose of the protection
of the consumer, passing o or prevention of unfair competition. Probably also the use of
a domain name, may create a right of action to protect it. However, under Israel Law trade
names have to be registered, to achieve protection and it may be argued that 'turpi causa
non oritur actio" if not registered. Therefore, Israel traders and firms using an "invented"
trade name (i.e. not their name or initials) may have to register the name under the "Trade
Name Registration Ordinance", in order to acquire a proprietary right. However, nevertheless it seems that in appropriate cases a user of a trade name may have a cause for action against an "infringer". lt seems, therefore, that the actual use of the "trade name" is
required for the creation of the right and the maintenance thereof and not merely the use
thereof as a domain name, in particular as there may be more than one "trade name" in
the market place, either in different jurisdictions or in the same jurisdiction, such as names
of individuals etc.
163
It should also be noted that the lack of possibility to register two identical names as domain names even in different territories may prevent the use of acquired rights in trade
names, which jeopardizes the right of a bona-fide user of a trade name. In this context it
should also be remembered that no cause of action may arise against a person who uses
his own name in his trade, except if such name is used in bad faith.
9.
Absolute invalidity of trade names
Invalidity of a trade name may be established in two ways -
At the time of registration as a legal entity's name or under the registration of the
business's name under the Ordinance, it is found to be identical to a name in use.
At the time it is established that a name affixed to goods as manufacturer, trader or
otherwise carrying on business in connection with such goods is "false".
The provisions referred to in (a) above include names and subjects that may be included
in names that make the names incapable of registration. lt is our opinion that the use of
such names in connection with goods would in fact render the names to be false.
10.
Infringement of trade names by a domain name
No specific provisions exist in Israeli law concerning infringement of trade names, but the
general rules of passing off, unfair competition or unjust enrichment will applying case infringement of a trade name by use of a domain name is established. Thus, special circumstances must be established and the likelihood of deception and possible damage
must be present in order to establish infringement of a trade name by a domain name. lt
should be noted, however, that such infringement may occur in every area that the infringing circumstances exist, i.e. similarity of goods, existence of trade activities of both
parties etc.
11.
Disclaimer of domain name holder to prevent infringement of trade names
As indicated in paragraph 6 above, it seems that the domain name holder cannot take any
measures to prevent in any territory that the use of the domain name shall not constitute
infringement of a trade mark by use of the domain name in a relevant territory. lt is our
opinion that more so if a possible infringement of a trade name may occur. This is because the use of a trade name is more extensive than of trade marks and may occur independently of sale of specific goods or rendering a specific service, but will occur whenever trade activities are carried on under that trade name, and also possible use of the
Internet for trade communication with the mark owner or by him may exist.
12.
Unfair competition by the use of a domain name
Unfair competition is not yet in Israel the subject of a special law. An Unfair Competition
Act has been tabled by the Government before the Knesset but has not yet been approved by the House. However, the Israeli courts have used the passing of legislation to
prevent unfair competition, i.e. the offering of goods and services as the goods of another
person, or as of different quality, or production etc. and using by such display the goodwill
of another person. It should be noted that also the provision in the Civil Wrongs Ordinance
applies only to goods, the court has expanded the same rules to services.
164
Under the proposed bill, the use of the assumed domain name will probably be considered
unfair competition if the choice of the name was "knowingly", and it seems that it will be
unnecessary to prove bad faith to receive relief under the law. This would mean that if evidence will show that there was no justified cause for the choice of a trade name or a domain name, an act of unfair competition has been performed.
Sanctions for infringement of rights by a domain name holder
Under Israeli law, a court may grant an injunction to prevent the use of an infringing domain name. Damages may also be awarded if damage has been caused by a passing off
act.
If intent to defraud can be shown, it may be possible to charge the holder in committing a
criminal offence, but such cases because of their nature seem to be very rare.
On the other hand, however, it does not seem that courts will have any power to order the
transfer of a domain name from the infringing party to the owner of the trade mark or the
trade name. This is the conclusion from two factors - (a) since the domain name is an address, it would indicate, for the former aggrieved party, a wrong address, unless the old
address is cancelled and a new registration of using the same domain name is made; (b)
there may be also other parties who may have the right to use the domain name as a
trade mark or the trade name.
International private law issues - applicable law
The law applicable in a case where the infringement has occurred in Israel will be the Israel law. In other cases (if the court has jurisdiction) will be the lex loci delicti, provided
Israel law is not applicable too, as the actionable act is deemed to have occurred in Israel
too.
International private law - the competent court
As a rule, the competent court will be the court where the infringement has occurred. Israeli courts will, however, have jurisdiction in cases where the infringement of the right
occurred in another country but the act is also of the kind actionable under Israel law and
it is not unjust or vexatious to try the case in Israel (Forum non conveniens).
165
Italy
ltalie
Italien
Report Q 143
in the name of the Italian Group
by Renata RIGHETTI, Enrico ANTONIELLI D'OULX, Stefano COLOMBO,
Gualtiero DRAGOTTI, Luca PEYRON and Giulio E. VIGEVANI
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
As a general rule, the Italian Domain Name Policy is very close to the InterNic policy1 and
is based on the "first come first served" principle. Moreover, in order to obtain a domain
name in Italy, the following requirements shall be fulfilled:
the applicant must be an individual or a company residing or incorporated in Italy.
only a single domain name is available for registration for each individual or company. In other words, is not possible to obtain more than one domain name.
The Italian Naming Authority does not require any payment of fees for a domain name
registration.
As far as Italy is concerned the Italian Naming Authority (GARR) does not contemplate any particular limitation as to the registration of domain name, but for:
-
geographical names, which are reserved to governmental or public institution/authorities, and acronyms thereof;
net names (i.e. corn, goy, net, www, whois, etc.).
In order to prevent legal domain name problems, we would suggest to adopt a solution which contemplates the possibility of registering a third level domain name
(i.e. name.co.it for commercial purpose, name.Ieg.it for legal firms, etc.)
Trademark Law
A domain name, being composed of signs capable to be graphically represented
(article 16 of Italian Trademark Law), can obtain trademark protection under the
following conditions:
166
by means of registration, provided that the domain name satisfies the general requisites for registration (i.e. it is new, original, true and lawful)
by means of use (unregistered trademark), provided that the use of the sign made it
capable of distinguishing goods or services. Such a result must be appreciated on a
case by case basis; as a guideline, the requisite can be more easily met when the
domain name corresponds to a sign used also in commerce to identify the products
or the services. The use of a domain name simply as an "electronic address" of the
company that uses a different trade name and offers products or services labelled
with different trademarks should not be deemed sufficient to get use trademark
protection.
The general rules on absolute invalidity of trademarks also apply, if trademark protection is sought for domain names, to the same extent to domain names.
lt seems to be almost impossible that the use of a domain name, which includes a
trademark, qualifiable under certain circumstances as a use of an unregistered
trademark (marchio di fatto), could qualify the subsequent filing by another party of
said trademark as a filing in bad faith.
In fact, the concept of bad faith, as provided by the article 48 of the Italian Trademark Law, has a very strict interpretation: the requirements, for the doctrine, are
that the subsequent trademark must be identical to an earlier trademark, for identical goods or services, because the subsequent applicant should have been aware
of the existence of the previous trademark, carrying out a search.
Therefore, the presence of a mere domain name should not fulfil the above mentioned requirements.
Art.42 of Italian Trademark Law states that a registered trademark must be used
"by the owner or with his consent for the products or services for which it has been
registered". However the Law does not directly specify in which way the use of a
trademark must be accomplished.
Therefore, in principle, any use of a trademark is apt to avoid the lapse of a trademark for non-use. In particular any use in manufacturing, selling or advertising is
generally considered to meet the requirements of the Law provided that such a use
had a significative dimension (i.e. the use is not a so-called token use).
As a general principle, the use of a registered trademark as a second level domain
name would be considered use of the trademark considering that the relevant part
of the domain name is the mark itself and the first level domain name ( com., edu,
it, etc.) is only an official, compulsory generic term.
f)
In the absence of any specific rule and/or Court decision, it is deemed that the mere
use of a registered trademark on Internet would not comply with the requirement
that the use of the trademark must occur in the territory of Italy, notwithstanding the
global nature of Internet.
167
We deem in fact that the mere use of a registered trademark as a domain name of
a server on which products and/or services, bearing the same registered trademark,
are offered will not be considered a sufficient use of the trademark to meet the requirements provided for by the Italian Law.
lt is likely that a stronger relation with the products and/or services for which the
trademark is registered would be required, e.g.: actual economic transactions within
the Italian territory or, at least, actual possibility of buying products and/or services
offered through Internet for entities having their place of business in Italy, as weH as
the sufficient number of people visiting the Web page characterized by the domain
name.
An Internet domain name can indeed infringe another party's rights to a trademark,
in case there is an actual identity or similarity of the goods or services. However it
should not be considered an infringement in case the goods or services are not
available in Italy.
In case of a merely advertising Web page, in order to avoid infringement, the origin
of the goods or services must be clearly indicated therein even without any disclaimer.
As to famous and well known trademarks the owners thereof could challenge the
subsequent use/registration of a third party's domain name irrespective of goods or
services identified by the domain name.
In order to prevent that use of a domain name infringes a trademark, the domain
name holder could take a measure consisting in a disclaimer, i.e.: "The products/services offered for sale hereunder are not available in Italy and are not on
sale within the Italian territory".
(j)
The nature of Internet is, by this time, predominantly commercial.
Therefore, the use of a domain name, to trade whatever goods or services different
from means of communication, does not automatically infringe the rights of the
owner of the service mark registered for means of communication.
The use of such mark as a domain name could be deemed to constitute infringing
use, only if the trademark for means of communication could be considered as a
famous trademark, pursuant to the Italian Trademark Law.
However, a case about the nature of Internet has never raised in Italy; a case, not
very far from the question here discussed, was decided by the Tribunale of
Modena, in its judgement of 23 October 1996, (II foro italiano s.r.l. y. Tiziano Solignani). The Court held that the use, by an expert of Law, of a domain name likely to
be mistaken for the title or the abbreviation of a famous juridical review, violated the
article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code and the article 100 of the Italian Copyright Act,
but did not infringe the trademarks rights or the rules of unfair competition, because
the defendant was not an entrepreneur.
168
Tradename Law
As far as the registration and use of a second level domain name is concerned see
what said on unregistered trademarks under (b) above.
The rules on absolute invalidity of tradenames also apply to the same extent to domain names.
(I)
An Internet domain name can indeed infringe another party's rights to a tradename,
in case there is an actual identity or similarity of the goods or services which are
available in this country. In Italy, however, the scope of protection of tradename is
generally more limited than the scope of protection accorded to registered trademarks, particularly as far as territorial use is concerned, and therefore this potential
conflict should be examined on a case by case basis.
In view of the above, the infringing of a tradename by a domain name must be assessed carefully, evaluating whether there is enough evidence that the domain
name was actually used, in the territory where the tradename is protected, to distinguish the competitor's company. The simple use of the domain name as such on
the Internet should not be deemed infringement of a tradename.
In order to prevent that use of a domain name infringes a third party's tradename,
the domain name holder could take a measure consisting in the disclaimer indicated above, i.e. as follows: "Commercial activities carried out under the domain
name are not available in Italy".
Unfair competition
Generally, the registration and use of a domain name which is identical or similar to
another party's trademark or trade name can be successfully attacked on the basis
of general rules of unfair competition or tort, if such registration and use actually
creates confusion with the goods or services of a competitor in the same business.
However, a stronger protection is provided, for the registered trademarks, by the
Italian Trademark Law.
In the particular circumstances of Internet, this form of protection could be used by
competitors to prohibit the use of a domain name that is identical, in the second
level, to the generic name of the goods or services related. This practice could be
considered by an Italian Court as an act of competition contrary to honest practices
in commercial matters, and consequently, pursuant to article 2598 of the Italian Civil
Code, an act of unfair competition.
Owing to the passive role of the Italian Naming Authority (GARR), there are not, at
the moment, effective instruments to deal with the practice of grabbing. The only
rule provided by the GARR, related to this practice, is that a subject can register
only one domain name.
169
Sanctions
The most effective remedy the Court can order against the holder of an infringing
domain name is the cease and desist injunction.
Such an injunction can be granted after an expedite procedure, even before the action in the merits is commenced. As a general principle, the Court can not grant the
injunction against the Naming Authority, unless it is involved in the suit; nevertheless, the Italian Naming Authority regulations (rule D 2) provide that a domain name
shall be revoked upon an explicit request by the criminal or civil judge.
Damages can be awarded, also, according to Italian standards.
International private law
In principle, article 54 of the Italian International Private Law applies. According to
such a rule, any dispute on IF rights (including trademarks and tradenames) must
be resolved according to the Law of the state where the IP rights are used, i.e.
where the protection is sought.
This means that the Italian Law applies to the infringement of an Italian trademark,
irrespective of the nationality of the infringer.
This means, also, that the infringement of a German trademark by an Italian entity
in Germany should be decided according to German Law, even if the case is
brought before the Italian judge.
According to the Italian International Private Law, that refers to the Brussels Convention, the infringement of a trademark or tradename should be decided by the
judge in whose forum the infringement took place (loci commissi delicti).
Furthermore the Italian judge is always competent when the defendant is domiciled in Italy.
In view of the above, Italian Courts may be deemed competent:
when the defendant is Italian;
when the infringement took place in Italy.
According to a preferred interpretation of the above last rule, the infringement takes place
in Italy only when at least a part of the infringing activity was carried out in Italy.
170
Japan
Japon
Japan
Report Q 143
by the Japanese Group
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
(a)
The Groups are invited to comment on the above described endeavours:
to prevent legal domain name problems by adoption of stricter registration
conditions(cfr. hereinabove 1.12);
Japanese Group is of the opinion that, in order to prevent legal domain name
problems, an adoption of more strict conditions than those of current practice is desirable for registration of domain name. lt is evident that almost cases of domain
name troubles relate to a conflict or dilution problem with a prior trademark, tradename or well-known trademark or tradename or other trade designation (hereinafter
referred to as "a prior trademark etc."). Especially, taking into account of the global
nature of Internet domain name and the legal problems occurred with a trademark,
tradename or other trade designation, an international rule to be adopted for registration of domain name is mostly desirable.
to solve such problems outside the courts (cfr. 1.13 a. f.); and to report on
the endeavours and actual measures already taken in their own countiy or
region, as well as to make their own suggestions of comparable measures or
other solutions of the specific domain name problems.
In order to resolve such problems between domain name and a prior trademark etc.
more efficiently, it is desirable to solve them through an authorized Alternative Dispute Resolution Center (ADR) than the courts of which procedures usually need
much costs and take a long time. Furthermore, for dealing with such disputes be-
tween domain name and a prior trademark etc., the expertise in this field is required, so it is considered that an Intellectual Property Right ADR, for instance,
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center or the like is mostly desirable and appropriate for this purpose.
In Japan, the Japanese Patent Attorneys Association (JPAA) and the Japanese
Federation of Bar Association (JFBA) are now jointly establishing the IP Alternative
Dispute Resolution Center, which will be started by March 1998, and domain name
171
dispute matter is actually planned to be included in the purpose of Center's business.
Trademark law
Can a domain name be a suitable candidate for trademark protection, and if so,
under which conditions? Please elaborate on the specific problems or peculiarities
which may arise in that respect (cir. 2.1-2.4)
Yes, a domain name can be a candidate for trademark protection under Japanese
Trademark Law, under which any trademark is registrable if 1) an intention to use of
it for specific scope of goods or services exists and then the mark is cleared both of
the 2) absolute and 3) relative grounds for rejection (i.e. distinctiveness and no
conflict with prior marks etc.- Articles 3 and 4 of our Trademark Law).
in other words, any domain name is registrable and protectable as a trademark
unless it is the subject of the above grounds of rejection 1 ),2) and 3), but there occurs such case that some domain name which is considered most useful sign as IP
address is not protected as a trademark under the Trademark Law, the followings
are examples thereof.
As for the requirement 1) for trademark protection above, for example, a domain
name "a a a bank.com" is not registrable for a security company, because a security company is prohibited by law to do banking business in Japan.
For the requirement 2), for example, a domain name consisting of nondistinctive
word; "orange.com' is not registrable as a trademark for fruits or the like or
"ab.com" is very simple and not registrable, too.
As for the requirement 3) above, Article 4, Subsection 1, items 1-19 of Japanese
Trademark Law is applicable.
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trademarks also apply to domain names (cfr.2. 5.)?
All the wies on absolute invalidity of a registered trademark (Article 45 of Trademark Law) also apply to domain name which seeks the protection as a trademark.
As far as a domain name is registered as a trademark, all the rules for registered
trademark are applicable thereto.
Can the prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark constitute sufficient use in order to qualify the subsequent fling by another party of said trademark
as a filing in bad faith (cfr. 2. 6 and 7)? If so, what are the requirements for such sufficient use?
Yes, the prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark can qualify the
subsequent filing by another party of said trademark as a filing in bad faith and can
prevent a registration of said another party's trademark under the certain conditions
172
The certain conditions, that is, the requirements for preventing another party's
trademark are as follows.
In the case that a domain name has become well-known among consumers,
through the prior continued use, as a trademark indicating the goods or services of
the domain name holder, and the another party's trademark is the same or similar
to the well-known domain name and said trademark is used for the same or similar
goods or services;
In the case that the domain name has become famous among the consumers and
another party's trademark is likely to cause confusion or misunderstanding as indication of the goods or services as being connected with the business of the domain
name holder; and,
In the case that the domain name has been recognized as well-known sign in Japan or any foreign country and another party's trademark is applied for with an unfair purpose (intention to gain unfair profit or intention to cause damage to domain
name holder);
Further, the domain name holder may also institute a cancellation action against
another party's registration of such trademark.
Can the use of a domain name as an IP-address of a seiver on which products
and/or services are offered for which the domain name is registered as a trademark
qualify as maintain use of that trademark (cfr. 2.8 and 9)?
Yes, it can qualify as maintaining use of that trademark under the certain conditions, that is to say;
First, the use of domain name must be done not only as IP address but also as a
trademark, second, such use of domain name must be done in Japan, and third,
such use must be continued at least for three years or more.
Is the requirement that maintaining use must occur in the territory of the trademark
automatically met as a consequence of the global nature of the Internet? If not,
please describe which further requirements must be met (cfr. 2.8)?
Just as answered to the question (e), the use of domain name must also be a
trademark use in the territory of Japan in order to qualify as the maintaining use of
the trademark.
There is no specific court precedent or authorized interpretation on this issue yet,
but in view of the global nature of Internet, it is possible to accept, as a proof
showing the use in Japan, a hard copy of the home page of domain name holder, in
which the domain name is used not only as IP address but also as a trademark. In
this case, it should be interpreted as the use in Japan.
Can an Internet domain name infringe another party's rights to a trademark? If so,
under which conditions? Please elaborate on the scope of protection of trademarks
173
against names and deal in your answer also with famous and well-known trademarks(cfr. 2.1 Oand 11).
The use of Internet domain name constitutes an infringement of registered trademark right in the case that such use is interpreted as a trademark use in respect of
the same or similar goods or services of registered trademark.
In case that a third party's trademark or other trade designation has been wellknown in Japan and the domain name which is identical or similar to the said wellknown trademark etc. for certain scope of goods or services, such use of domain
name as a trademark or other trade designation is prohibited under the Unfair
Competition Prevention Law.
Further, in the case that a third party's trademark or other trade designation is recognized as famous sign, such a domain name use is prohibited regardless of the
conflict between the goods or services each other.
(h)
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that
his use of the domain name constitutes infringement of a trademark in territories
where the domain name holder has no commercial interests? Please elaborate on
the contents of e.g. disclaimers (cfr. 2.12).
As started in the answer to question (f) above, the use of domain name as a trademark in Internet media would be normally considered the use in Japan, too, in view
of the global nature of Internet and free accessibility of it anywhere. However, it
may be interpreted that no trademark infringement is constituted if the domain
name holder positively makes a notice with indication that the object goods or
services shall not be sold or supplied in Japan.
In the meantime, when the third party's prior trademark or other trade designation
has been recognized among consumers or traders in Japan as well-known or famous trademark, it must be further considered whether or not such use of domain
name (with disclaimer) will still constitute dispute; such as a dilution issue or the
like.
(j)
What is the answer to the question raised hereinbe fore under2. 13 as to the use of a
domain name on Internet for whatever product or seivice if the domain name is
identical or similar to a third party's mark which has been registered for means of
communication?
As for this point of issue, it seems that the answer is not simple, that is to say, if the
case that the use of domain name is interpreted as a trade mark use for his goods
or services, such use does not infringe a third party's trademark registration for
means of communication, but on the other hand, if the use of domain name is also
interpreted as the use of service mark for means of communication (on behalf of his
customers), such use would infringe the third party's trademark registration.
lt is proposed that an international harmonizing of interpretation must be estab-
lished on this issue, too.
174
Tradename Law
U)
Can the registration and use of an Internet domain name be sufficient to create,
and maintain, a tradename right to the second-level domain name included therein?
Is, in view of the global nature of the Internet, any use of a domain name which includes the company name of the domain name holder sufficient? If not, which additional requirements need to be fulfilled (cfr. 3.2 and 3)?
As a Civil law country, registration of a tradename (at the Commercial Register kept
by the Registry) is the primary way to obtain rights. Article 20 of the Commercial
Code of Japan stipulates that " A person who has registered a tradename may demand, as against any person using the same or a similar tradename for purposes
of unfair competition, the discontinuance of its use; this shall not, however, preclude
any claim for damages."
Accordingly, the registration and use of an Internet domain name, in the absence of
the registration of the tradename at the Commercial Register, is not sufficient to
create a tradename right under the Commercial code. This does not mean, however, that a tradename (either of a domestic firm or a foreign firm in the Paris Union) very well known in the minds of the public but without registration at the Commercial Register cannot be protected in Japan. Accordingly to the Unfair Competition Prevention Law, a famous trade designation is subject to protection even without the registration.
(k)
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trade names also apply to domain names(cfr. 3.4)?
Under the Commercial Code of Japan, the following rules on absolute invalidity of
trade names exist:
No tradename which has been registered by another person shall be registered in the same administrative jurisdiction (city, town or village) in respect
of the same kind of business.
No tradename which is deemed to be against public order including an obscene word or a name of a government agency shall be registered.
These rules do not apply to JPNIC which is a private organization responsible for
registering the domain names.
(I)
Does the global nature of the Internet imply that the normal criteria of infringement
of a tradename apply to any use of an identical or similar domain name? Or must
there be a specific relation (of some sort) between your Group 's country or region
and the use of the domain name (or the offerings which are made on the seiver of
which the domain name is the address; cfr. 3.5)?
There has been no established legal principle in Japan, whether as a court decision
or as an academic theory, concerning the question of the jurisdiction over the activities in the Internet where the act of transmitting the data is not committed in Ja-
pan. There has been a criminal case, in which the disclosure of obscene photo175
graphs by a Japanese resident via the Internet provider with the server located in
Japan was successfully prosecuted as an violation of Article 175 of the Criminal
Code (Prohibition of Public Display of Obscene Object). On the other hand, the law
is silent as to whether the jurisdiction can be applied to one transmitting the data or
holding the domain name from outside Japan in a situation where only the reception of the message via the net is the act committed in Japan. Given the global nature of the activities via the Internet, a set of legal principles resolving the question
of the jurisdiction over the activities involving the Internet is deemed necessary and
such principles should, ideally, be harmonized internationally to ensure a proper
enforcement.
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that
his use of the domain name infringes another party's tradename in territories where
the domain name holder has no (significant) commercial interests? Again: would
the use of a disclaimer be effective? If so, please elaborate on the contents of such
disclaimer(cfr. 3. 6).
The factors for determining the likelihood of confusion in a tradename infringement
case are similar to those in a trademark infringement case. Accordingly, other than
the evidence of actual confusion, such factors as the strength of a plaintiffs mark,
the degree of similarity between the two marks, the likelihood that plaintiff will
bridge the gap, and the defendant's good faith in adopting the mark are taken into
consideration. While the disclaimer may, in some instances, reduce the likelihood of
confusion, it cannot totally negate the infringement as the issue must be judged as
a totality of the circumstances based upon various factors.
Unfair competition
Can the registration and use of a domain name which is identical or similar to another party's trademark and/or tradename be successfully attacked on the basis of
general rules of unfair competition or tort? If so under which conditions? If an element of bad faith is required, please elaborate on the nature thereof and provide
example. Please discuss the legal possibilities to deal with the practice generally
referred to as "domain name grabbing"(cfr. 4.1 and 2).
The answer is yes, if ways of use of a domain name should fall within one of the
categories prescribed in the Unfair Competition Prevention Law.
The Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law provide the definitions of
what acts would constitute unfair competition. First, if an act using a third party's
well-known indication of goods including tradename, trademark, packages of
goods, and other indication of a third party's goods or business including service
(hereinafter referred simply as "indication of goods") may cause confusion with the
third party's goods or business, the act would constitute unfair competition.
Second, an act using identical or similar mark of a third party's very well-known indication of goods as one's own would constitute unfair competition.
176
If way of use a domain name on the Internet falls within one of the two patterns,
cause of action under the Unfair Competition Prevention law stands.
The first pattern
To establish the first pattern of cause of action, two elements must be proved. First, the
indication of goods to be protected must be well-known. Thus, if an indication of goods
which has not been well-known should be adopted by a third party as a domain name, the
use of the indication per se does not constitute unfair competition. Here court precedents
show, to establish that "a mark is well-known", it is not necessary that the mark be known
to the public at large all over Japan, rather the knowledge among the relevant public is
enough.
Second, likelihood of confusion must be proved. Thus, even though the mark is wellknown, if there is no likelihood of confusion, this cause of action does not stand.
In Japan, there have been no court decisions regarding this cause of action, though we
could presume a typical case that would constitute this pattern of unfair competition.
Suppose a person registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to a tradename of a
famous department store, and the home page of this person is an advertisement of many
kinds of merchandise usually sold in ordinary department stores. In this hypothetical case,
it is highly probable that an ordinary consumer would believe that the famous department
store is selling the goods in cyber markets on the net. Then likelihood of confusion may be
proved.
Besides these two issues, there is one more question. The issue is whether the adoption
of a domain name can constitute "use" of an indication of goods in the meaning of the
Unfair Competition Prevention Law. In this regard, we should assume that if a domain
name is used in connection with a home page that would solicit some business. Therefore, since all elements are fulfilled, this hypothetical case would fall in the first pattern of
unfair competition.
On the other hand, if the third party should advertise totally unrelated goods, like pornography, which an ordinary consumer would not associate with the department store, likelihood of confusion would not be proved. If this is the case, it would be difficult to invoke the
Unfair Competition Prevention Law.
The second pattern
To establish the second pattern of cause of action, also two elements must be proved.
First, an indication of goods to be protected must be very-well known. Second, the infringer must use the indication of goods as his own.
"Very-well known" is established if the indication of goods is known to the general public
all over Japan. Typical examples of "very-well known indication of goods" are: SONY,
NISSAN, SEIKO, MITSUKOSHI, LOUIS VUITTON, CHANEL.
Since likelihood of confusion is no longer required for this cause of action, acts diluting or
tarnishing the very well known nature of the third party's indication of goods would also be
177
covered by this article. Therefore, in the above mentioned case, if a person should misuse
a third party's very well-known indication of goods in his home-page on the Internet,(a
typical example is an advertisement of pornography), the second pattern cause of action
might stand regardless of non-association among the public.
Under this Article, the owner of an indication of goods could establish the cause of actin if
he could prove that his mark is very-well known and that the defendant's use of the domain name is "the use" of an indication of goods.
In order to prevent a third party's use of a domain name, a legal cause of action is necessary. Since a "domain name" itself is understood as an "address on the Internet" mere
adoption of a domain name would not constitute any infringement against the third party's
legal right unless the way of the adoption should fall within one of the categories prescribed in the Unfair Competition Prevention Law. To stop "domain name grabbing outside
the scope of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law, the Trademark Law may sometimes
successfully deal with it, but ideally we may need new legislation.
Sanctions
(o)
Which sanctions can a court order against the holder of a domain name which infringes the trademark or tradename rights of another party or which is otherwise
unlawful vis-à -vis said party? Please indicate whether the-court has the power to di-
rectly order the transfer of such domain name from the infringing party to the
trademark/tradename owner (cfr. 5.1 and 2).
So far, in Japan, there is no court decision reporting to the conflict issues between
Internet domain names, and trademark or tradename rights.
If a court admits and decides that a domain name infringes, or causes confusion
with, the trademark or tradename rights of another party, the court order can grant
the civil remedies (to provide injunctive relief, to award claims for monetary damages and br to publish notice of apology for recovering the reputation) and br impose criminal sanction(fine or imprisonment) under the Trademark Law or the Unfair Competition Prevention Law.
In case of famous trademarks and tradenames, even through there exists no actual
confusion caused by the use of a domain name, the civil remedies (injunction,
monetary award and/or notice of apology) without criminal sanction are granted to
the famous trademark/tradename owner.
The court cannot have the power to directly order the transfer of an infringing domain name from the infringing party to the party whose rights are infringed. Further
to say, it is unclear or negative that the court may have the power to order the
transfer of it.
Through a court ruling or an arbitral award, JPNIC would take an appropriate
measure of the stay, annulment or cancellation of a domain name which infringes
the trademark or tradename rights of another party.
178
It seems that JPNIC itself does not have any power to directly order the transfer of
such domain name from the infringing party to the trademark/tradename owner.
International private law
Which rules of the international private law of your Group's countiy or region apply
in order to determine the applicable law in a dispute regarding the infringement of a
trademark or tradename by an Internet domain name(cfr. 6.l.and 2)?
As mentioned previously, there has been no court case nor court decision on the
disputes between Internet domain name and a prior or well-known trademark or
tradename etc.
lt is reported that various court decisions on this issue have been rendered from the
courts of national jurisdiction in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom,
France etc., in all cases of which were dealt with by the national law, so such released information thereof would be useful for further consideration of achieving
more accurate international rules to resolve this kind of problem (i.e. the global nature of disputes) in the sense of international private law.
As introduced in the part of question (I), there is one court decision on criminal case
in Japan, which was decided by application of Japanese law at Japanese court.
The provisions concerning international private law are stipulated in the "Horei' law
(enacted since 1898) in Japan, but it has not presumed from the beginning such a
global nature of problem like Internet domain name disputes.
In view of the global nature of disputes occurred through Internet, for the current
position of Japan, it is desirable and to recommend to study and establish new international private law wIes.
Which international private law rules applying order to determine which court is
competent to deal with the above-mentioned disputes (cfr. 6. 3.)?
As said before, since there has been no court decision on this kind of dispute in Japan, it is not easy to offer some useful suggestion, but it is desirable to establish
new international private law wIes which shall be effective for determining a jurisdiction of competent court where the above-mentioned dispute is to be dealt with
and for enabling the court to make effective enforcement properly and economically
throughout the related countries of world.
179
Latvia
Letton ie
Lettland
Bericht Q 143
der Lettischen Landesgruppe
Internet Domain Namen, Marken und Handelsnamen
Die mit den Internet Domain Namen verbundenen rechtlichen Probleme, so z.B. das Problem des ihnen zukommenden oder nicht zukommenden Schutzes, die Überschneidung
mit Markenrechten und/oder Rechten an Handelsnamen (Firmennamen) beginnt zur Zeit
auch die Spezialistenkreise in Lettland immer mehr zu beschäftigen. Die Meinung der
überwiegenden Mehrheit derselben besteht darin, dass ein Domain Namen eher einem
Handelsnamen gleicht, als einer Dienstleistungsmarke. Das Problem ist, dass ein Firmennamen nach Artikel 8 der Pariser Übereinkunft auch dann Schutz geniesst, wenn er nirgends eingetragen ist und eine solche Eintragung ist nicht erforderlich. Allerdings stellt er
nach der in vielen Ländern bestehenden Rechtsprechung nur dann ein Hindernis für die
Eintragung einer identischen oder ähnlichen (auf identische oder ähnliche Waren/Leistungen bezogenen)Marke dar, falls dieser Namen im relevanten Verkehr mehr
oder weniger bekannt geworden ist; die gewisse Bekanntheit muss also im konkreten
Land entstanden sein, in dem die Kollisionsmarke von einem Dritten angemeldet ist. Die
Globalität des Internet-Verkehrs stellt die Anwendung des nationalen Prinzips der Bekanntheit in Frage.
Die Landesgruppe hält die Behandlung von Internet Domain Namen als Marken mit Eintragung etc. als unrealistisch.
Wenig realistisch scheint auch eine Anforderung nach globaler Registrierung aller Domain
Namen, denn diese müsste auf konkrete Waren/Leistungen bezogen sein.
Es sollte aber auch keine Sackgasse in bezug auf dieses Problem geben. Es kann angenommen werden, dass man nicht über den Rahmen einer nationalen Registrierung von
Domain Namen hinausgehen können wird. Es könnte denkbar sein, dass ein Gesuch auf
Registrierung von einer Erklärung begleitet sein müsste, wonach der die Registrierung
seines Domain Namens Anstrebende, erstens, bezeugt, dass nach seinem guten Wissen
keine älteren Rechte an identischen Marken oder Firmennamen, bezogen auf gleiche
oder ähnliche Waren/Leistungen, im gegebenen nationalen Rahmen bestehen, und er
sich, zweitens, verpflichtet, bei Vorhandensein von ihm nicht böswillig unbeachteter älterer
Rechte, seinen Domain Namen abzuändern.
Ein schwieriges Problem bleibt bei einer solchen vorstellbaren Regelung die Frage, wie
die nationale Registrierung und der quasi-nationale Geltungsbereich des Domain Namens
mit dem ausgesprochen internationalen Verkehr im Internet zu vereinbaren wäre.
180
Ein sog. Vertriebsverzicht oder Vertriebseinschränkung in bezug auf einzelne Länder wäre
nach unserer Meinung weder sinnvoll, noch effektiv. Ein Nutzen für die Mitbewerber ist
hieraus nicht zu ersehen.
Die Lettische Landesgruppe schliesst sich der Ansicht an, dass die Problematik der Frage
Q 143 nicht nur schwierig, sondern auch von grosser praktischer Wichtigkeit Ist und mit
jedem Jahr immer aktueller werden wird. Am Versuch, eine akzeptable Lösung zu finden,
muss weitergearbeitet werden.
181
Mexico
Mexique
Mexiko
Report Q 143
in the name of the Mexican Group
by Luis C. SCHMIDT
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
(a)
The Groups are invited to comment on the above described endeavours:
to prevent legal domain name problems by adoption of stricter registration conditions (cfr. hereinabove 1.12);
to solve such problems outside the courts (cfr. 1.13 a.f.); and to report on the endeavours and actual measures already taken in their own countty or region, as well
as to make their own suggestions of comparable measures or other solutions of the
specific domain name problems.
As it is in the rest of the world, in Mexico, protection of domain names is a new subject
that requires attention, as it has triggered legal questions of many sorts. As we would
know and be aware, there are still no cases concerning or involving domain names that
have been brought with the Mexican Industrial Property Institute (IMPI) or the Courts. In
our concept, there is much to study and say in this regard, however, as we have read from
some of the court decisions in the U.S. neither domain names nor any other internet is-
sues would be so unusual or novel, or should be apart from the general principles and
rules of trademark law.
In the U.S. case of Princeton Review y. Kaplan the Court distinguishes the following three
points of analysis from the fact that a third party sought and obtained domain name registration for "kaplan.com", without the authorization of Princeton Review, its real owner:
"Domain names are to Internet what addresses are to Postal Service. They're more
than that, really, since your domain name can teI' the on-line world something about
who you are. Domain names are kind of like postal addresses, vanity license plates
and bill boards, all rolled into one digital enchilada".
The ability of domain names to serve as trademarks by the fact that they are used
for accessing to websites that offer and advertise the sale of products or services.
Thus, if the domain name pertains to someone else distinct from the owner, it would
likely represent a source of confusion among Internet users over the source of the
182
information located at this address, which would necessarily translate into a real
damage of the goodwill in that mark.
3.
If the mark registered with the domain name register happens to be a well known
one, it very well might represent a factor of bad intent.
In Mexico, there is no a central official or government agency that would keep a list or
register of domain names for use in connection with the Internet. However, there is indeed
a private organization named NIC MEXICO, related to a prestigious university in Monterrey, N.L., (it is called "Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey"), which
maintains a register of mx.,.edu.mx.,.com.mx,.org.mx,.net.mx, and.gob.mx.
For qualifying to record with the register, NIC MEXICO requests that the server subject to
the connection is located in Mexico. In addition, it requests the user to execute a service
agreement, and that certain written policies are met. A sample of an English version of the
filing procedure and costs is available at w.w.w.nic.mx. That website displays a Spanish
version of the contract and related policies as well.
Of special interest the following provisions of both the policy and the agreement, can be
enhanced:
Article 3.6 of the policy, wherein it is established that registering a domain name
does not mean registering a trademark, and that NIC MEXICO is not responsible if
trademarks are registered as domain names. lt would be thus a requirement that
the applicant consults that is not violating a registered mark.
2
Clause 7.2 of the service agreement, which confirms the provisions of the policy.
Article 3.4 of the policy, which states that NIC MEXICO shall not allow registration
of geographic names and indications, excepting for the date of domains under
gob.mx.
Article 3.8 of the policy, wherein it is provided that in case that NIC MEXICO refuses an application of domain name, applicant shall be entitled to file a proposal
before an appeal panel or committee. In addition, NIC MEXICO shall send to an adhoc authorization committee, for its review, all those applications for domain name
registrations that NIC MEXICO considers to be offensive or going against the principles of Internet.
From the foregoing, it can be appreciated that NC MEXICO has adopted the same passive attitudes of other regional or local registers, when involving registrations of domain
names consisting of trademarks. NIC MEXICO does not consider itself an enforcer of
rights, although it provides limited relief, as it was explained above.
Accordingly, it is clear that the performance of NIC MEXICO requires better guidelines and
ruling. Among others, as a de facto authority, NIC MEXICO is at present imposing the
rules of the game as its own will. Other laws as the law on Industrial Property (LIP) should
probably be amended also, for expressly stating that a valid registered trademark can be
183
employed for enforcing nonauthorized use of that symbol as a domain name. The LIP provides this type of solution in case of trade names by stating the following:
"Article 90. Not registrable as trademarks are:
XVII. A trademark that is identical or confusingly similar to a trade name applied to
a company or an industrial, commercial or service establishment, the primary activity of which is the production or sale of the products or the rendering of the services
purported to be protected with the trademark, and provided that the trade name has
been used prior to the date of filing of an application for a trademark registration or
to the date of declared use thereof. The foregoing will not apply when the trademark application is filed by the holder of the trade name, if no other identical published trade name exists".
"Article 91. A registered trademark or a confusingly similar trademark that has been
previously registered may not be used nor may it form a part of the trade name,
corporate or firm name of an establishment or corporate person, in the following
cases:
I.
In the case of establishments or corporate persons whose activity is the production,
import or marketing of commodities or services equal or similar to those to which
the registered trademark is applied, and
Il.
When there is no written consent of the holder of the trademark registration or of
the person empowered to do so.
A violation of this precept will lead to the application of the sanctions referred to in
this law, and a judicial claim may be filed to suppress use of the registered trademark or to the trademark confusingly similar to one previously registered, of the
trade name, of the respective corporate or firm names and payment of harm and
damages.
The provisions hereof will not apply when the trade names, corporate or firm name
included the trademark prior to the date of filing or of the first declared use of the
registered trademark".
Trademark law
(b)
Can a domain name be a suitable candidate for trademark protection, and if so,
under which conditions? Please elaborate on the specific problems or peculiarities
which may arise in that respect (cfr. 2.1-2.4).
This question cannot be answered so easily. In principle, we consider that it is possible
that domain names perform as trademarks, as they are capable to distinguish products or
services coming from the same source and pertaining to the holder of the domain name.
As it is correctly mentioned in the questionnaire, domain names do not merely serve as
the IP address of a particular server that is connected to the Internet. Of course, for quali-
184
fying for trademark protection, the domain name, or at least the second level portion
thereof, need to meet the principles and general standards of Trademark Law, and be duly
registered with IMPI.
Notwithstanding the feasibility that domain names can function as trademarks, in order to
qualify for protection they would require that they are used in compliance with the terms
that are set forth in article 130 of the LIP and 62 of the Regulations to the LIP, which state
as follows:
Article 130. If a trademark is not used within three consecutive years on the products or services for which it was registered, its registration will lapse, unless the
holder or user who has a registered license used it during three consecutive immediately preceding years prior to the filing of an application for an administrative
declaration of lapse, or unless circumstances arise beyond the will of the trademark
holder that constitute an obstacle for its use, such as import restrictions or other
governmental requirements applicable to the commodities or services to which the
trademark is applied.
Article 62 of the Regulation to LIP.
For the purposes of Article 130 of this Law, among other cases, it will be understood that a trademark is in use, when the goods or services distinguished by the
said trademark have been introduced into Mexican commerce or are available in
the market in the country under the said trademark, in number and manner corresponding to the customary uses in commerce. I will be also understood that a
trademark is in use when it is applied to goods to be exported.
As it can be appreciated, article 62 of the Regulations to the LIP understands the meaning
of trademark use in a narrow form, as it requires that any mark is applied in connection
with a product that is then put in commerce or a service that is rendered. The following
would very likely not give room to interpretations in the direction that the mark is in use by
the mere fact that the products or services are advertised, without then being subject to a
subsequent commercial operation. Domain names work, in general, as a source for locating websites that advertise products or services; this would bring complications in protecting them by trademark law, unless that by accessing the website, the user may actually
buy the product or be rendered a service. In conclusion, the scope of article 62 of the
Regulations to the LIP is not wide enough to protect advertising as a form of trademark
use, if not supported with further sales or services.
(c)
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trademarks also apply to domain names (cfr. 2.5e)?
Domain names require to comply with the registrability standards in the Trademark Law if
they are to be protected as trademarks. This would mean that invalidation rules should
fully apply to domain names. Also, NIC MEXICO's registration efforts require to be better
regulated. As mentioned above, the causes of invalidation of this type of registrations are
very limited, and would thus require to be reviewed and amended.
185
Notwithstanding the foregoing, registration of domain names may sometimes conflict with
the principles of trademark law. For example, under such principles, trademarks will be
protected even if they are similar to others that have been previously registered, as long
as they are used in connection with different products or services. This rule may not apply
to domain names, wherein a single registration may appear to cover the entire range of
products and services, and nobody else would be entitled to obtain a domain name registration for the same or similar name, even if the junior applicant is dedicated to essentially
different activities. The foregoing may very well develop into serious disputes and conflicts, which will require attention.
Can the prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark constitute sufficient use in order to qualify the subsequent filing by another party of said trademark
as a filing in bad faith (cfr. 2.6 and 7)? If so, what are the requirements for such sufficient use?
This is related to the answer given in point (b) above. lt is possible extending trademark
protection to domain names, but they need to be used in conformance with what it is established in the LIP and Regulations, as in the contrary, any registration that is granted on
a domain name may lapse for lack of use. Prior use is protected under Mexican Law,
however, it requires also that the mark is applied to products or services that are sold in
commerce.
Can the use of a domain name as an IP-address of a seiver on which products
and/or services are offered for which the domain name is registered as a trademark
qualify as maintaining use of that trademark (cfr. 2.8 and 9)?
The same answer in point (d) above would be reproduced here.
Is the requirement that maintaining use must occur in the territoiy of the trademark
automatically met as a consequence of the global nature of the Internet? If not,
please describe which further requirements must be (cfr. 2.8)?
The answer in point (d) is applicable here also. Use of trademark in the territory of Mexico
is an additional requirement in the law. This may not embrace the possibility that a trademark is used in Mexico by the fact that Internet users may have access to websites residing at servers located abroad. This would be questionable under Mexican Law as it would
not be the user of the website who is doing the business by promoting, selling and/or rendering the products or services. On the other hand, we would not consider being a problem that the domain name, used as a mark, complies with territorial requirements, if the
server is located in Mexico. Again, use of the mark has to occur in the territory where the
mark has been registered, and the scope and extent of this rule is also strict.
Can an Internet domain name infringe another party's rights to a trademark? If so,
under which conditions? Please elaborate on the scope of protection of trademarks
against domain names and deal in your answer also with famous and well-known
trademarks (cfr. 2.10 and 11).
As mentioned above, it is in principle possible that domain names infringe third parties'
legitimate rights to their trademarks. Additional arguments for the finding of infringement
186
would exist if the trademark happens to be a well known one in the terms of article 90 (XV)
of the LIP.
It would not be clear under the LIP, it if would be possible to enforce trademark rights
when the domain name is used as a trademark and that this latter pertains to a third party
having protection over the name, but in connection with essentially different products or
services. We would tend to believe that under the speciality principle, there would not be
an action possible, unless the case of a well known trademark, which of course, represents an exception to the general rule.
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that
his use of the domain name constitutes infringement of a trademark in territories
whether the domain name holder has no commercial interests? Please elaborate
on the contents of e.g. disclaimers (cfr. 2.12).
Yes, in our opinion disclaimers should represent good and effective means for showing
good faith in the adoption of domain names, in situations wherein conflicts may arise, specially referring to territorial disputes. The notice or disclaimer should work out fine, besides
the fact that the domain name holder restrains itself from actually selling products or rendering services in the conflicting territory. If the foregoing is met, we believe that the domain name holder would have good arguments against infringement claims of trademark
owners having rights in the territory of conflict. Concerning the access that users in the
conflicting territory may have to the server belonging to the domain name holder, and located outside the conflicting jurisdiction, it should definitively not be considered as a cause
of trademark infringement, as it would be the user and not the domain name holder who is
accessing the server. Consequently, we agree with the fact that a notice or disclaimer
would be of great assistance in avoiding conflicts.
What is the answer to the question raised hereinbe fore under 2.13 as to the use of
a domain name on Internet for whatever product or service if that domain name is
identical or similar to a third party's mark which has been registered for means of
communication?
The problem would have to be solved on a case-by-case basis. In principle we would tend
to believe that no infringement arguments would be available, unless there is a base for
the finding of likelihood of confusion. Finding infringement by the mere fact that Internet is
a communication medium would be like saying that trade or service marks in any particular class would violate the rights of the holder of a registration in international class 35, if
they advertise or promote the sale of their products or services. The examples used at
point 2.13 of the questionnaire may not be good ones, as they refer to well known marks
as LE MONDE and THE ECONOMIST. Under Mexican Law, there is no question that they
would be protected, without even having to analyze the present question. We would rather
use examples of less known marks in the communication services field, and would probably confirm the opinion that has been explained herein.
Tradename law
Can the registration and use of an Internet domain name be sufficient to create,
and maintain, a tradename right to the second-level domain name included therein?
187
Is, in view of the global nature of the Internet, any use of a domain name which includes the company name of the domain name holder sufficient? If not, which additional requirements need to be fulfilled (cfr. 3.2 and 3)?
No, under Mexican Laws there are certain rules and formalities that have to be complied
with in order to create rights over a tradename, and it would not be possible then to claim
rights by simply using the domain name as the name of a company. For creating the rights
it is needed that the applicant requests approval from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who
conducts a search of references on tradenames that have been previously approved.
Then the company is set before a notary public, who firstly publicly attests on its incorporation, and then seeks recordai with the Register of Companies, under the name as approved by the government.
(k)
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trade names also apply to domain names (cfr. 3.4)?
No specific tradename invalidation rules are contemplated in the Mexican Laws. lt maybe
possible to bring actions before the Administrative Courts requesting the suppression or
modification of tradenames that are identical or similar and that identify companies engaged in same or similar activities. The legal grounds for such cause of actions would be
found in the general principles of law. If these actions would be available at all, it sure
would be in cases where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs approves two or more similar or
identical tradenames, and in our opinion they may be extended to cases where NIC
MEXICO grants registrations of domain names that have been previously approved and
recorded with the authorities intervening in the incorporation of the companies. However,
all the foregoing has never been tested, and represents an opinion only.
(I)
Does the global nature of the Internet imply that the normal criteria of infringement
of a tradename apply to any use of an identical or similar domain name? Or must
there be a specific relation (of some sort) between your Group 's country or region
and the use of the domain name (or the offerings which are made on the server of
which the domain name is the address; cfr. 3.5)?
There are no provisions under any of the Mexican Laws that deal with infringement of
tradenames.
(m)
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that
his use of the domain infringes another party's tradename in territories where the
domain name holder has no (significant) commercial interests? Again: would the
use of a disclaimer be effective? If so, please elaborate on the contents of such
disclaimer (cfr. 3.6).
Disclaimers would be appropriate signs of good faith in the use of domain names. However, as mentioned, the Mexican Laws do not contemplate infringement provisions, as
applied to tradenames.
188
Unfair competition
(n)
Can the registration and use of a domain name which is identical or similar to another party's trademark and/or tradename be successfully attacked on the basis of
genera! rules of unfair competition or tort? 1f so, under which conditions? If an element of bad faith is required, please elaborate on the nature thereof and provide
examples. Please discuss the legal possibilities to deal with the practice generally
referred to as "domain name grabbing" (cfr. 4.1 and 2).
The rules of unfair competition could possibly give standing to actions taken against
nonauthorized uses and registration of domain names consisting of trademarks
belonging to third parties. In this regard, article 213 (IX) of the LIP establishes the
following:
First of all we would quote the unfair competition provision that is established at the LIP:
"Article 213. The following constitute administrative infringements:
"IX. To perform, during the exercise of industrial or commercial activities, acts which
confuse or lead the public to confusion, error or deceit, by making it believe or presume, without foundation:
The existence of a relationship or association between one establishment
and that of a third party;
That products are manufactured under specifications, licenses or the
authorization of a third party;
That services are provided or products are sold under the authorization, licenses or specification of a third party;
That the product in question originates in a territory, region or locality other
than the true place of origin in such manner as to induce the public to error
as to the geographic origin of the product".
The standing of such an action would be that, within a particular industry or market, a
competitor performs acts that confuse or lead the public to confusion, error or deceit, that
there is association between its place of business, products or services, and that of the
competitor whose rights are being affected.
As it can be appreciated, the above referenced provision is broad enough to comprise as
an infringement the non-authorized use of a domain name as a trademark, and it could
even extend to any form that can be imagined by which the consumer public falls into
confusion. For that end, the trademark or distinctive symbol may not necessarily be in use
in terms of article 62 of the Regulations to the LIP. lt may also be possible to consider an
unregistered symbol as the standing for this action, as long as it is capable to function as
a source indicator. Under the foregoing, it may be possible to find infringement on a
trademark that is being employed as a domain name for advertising, promoting or offering
for sale products or services, that are same or similar as to those produced, sold or rendered by the trademark owner.
189
Sanctions
Which sanctions can a court order against the holder of a domain name which infringes the trademark or tradename rights of another party or which is otherwise
unlawful vis-à -vis said party? Please indicate whether the court has the power to di-
rectly order the transfer of such domain name from the infringing party to the
trademark/tradename owner (cfr. 5.1 and 2).
They would be administrative, basically, although they could sometime be criminal (prison)
and civil (declaration of damages) as well. The fundamental administrative sanction would
be imposed by IMPI and is as follows:
In addition, IMPI is empowered to order the ceasing (preliminary and permanent) on the
use of a particular mark, however, we would doubt if from the scope of such a provision
IMPI would have the extra power to directly order the transfer of a domain name from the
infringing party to the trademark/tradename owner. For that be likely to happen, IMPI
would require express powers conferred by the LIP, and the statute is silent on that regard.
International private law
Which rules of the international private law of your Group's countiy or region apply
in order to determine the applicable law in a dispute regarding the infringement of a
trademark or tradename by an Internet domain name (cfr. 6.1 and 2).
lt is clear that the territorial aspect of the domain name problem has a major resemblance
and importance, as it is sometimes hard to know where rights are being infringed and accordingly, which law should be applied and which particular Court should exercise the
venue over the infringement.
In Mexico, article 121 of the Federal Constitution establishes that resolutions declared in a
particular State dealing with personal rights shall be enforced at other different States
when the person against whom the resolution was pronounced has voluntarily, or by virtue
of his domicile, submitted to the venue of the Court that resolved. Personal notification has
to be served in every single of these cases. The principle of the Mexican Constitution can
be applied internationally.
The question here would be how to apply the foregoing principle to domain names. Giving
answer to this question would definitively require a deep study. However, if something has
to be said here, we would consider that in principle, if the owner of a server located in
Mexico, has registered its.mx domain name with NIC MEXICO, and allegedly starts infringing trademark rights, it should have to be sued under the laws and fora of that country
as the server is located there. In our opinion this would happen if the alleged infringer
would be found to have infringed trademark rights by transmitting the website to a user
located abroad, who had access by employing the domain name.
Which international private law rules apply in order to determine which court is
competent to deal with the above mentioned dispute (cfr. 6.3)?
This question was answered before.
190
Summary
Mexico is not absent from the globalization process, which has had a great impact in the
communication field. The World Wide Web is a good example of how information can now
cross borders without limitations. In this new era servers function as recipients of correspondence, and domain name as their addresses, as if we were talking about the street
name of a particular house, office or building. Domain names have their own particularities, although they share characteristics with other forms for identifying locations such as
telephone numbers. Domain names can serve as trademarks by the fact that they are
used for accessing to websites that offer and advertise the sale of products or services.
This may be acceptable under Mexican Law, however, at the same time it would have to
be taken into account that for qualifying for trademark protection, the domain name needs
to be used in connection with the sale of products or the rendering of services. In any
event, if domain names are to carry out trademark functions they need to comply with
trademark law principles.
NIC MEXICO is a private entity in charge of the register of.mx domain names, and has
followed certain policies, which as far as trademarks is concerned, it has adopted a passive attitude as other registers in the world. It is thus desirable that rules better protect
registration of domain names.
Unfair competition provisions may represent adequate legal tools to enforce the nonauthorized use of domain names as trademarks, as it is a broader concept that does not
necessarily require the domain name to be used in connection with the selling of products
or services.
The territorial aspect of domain name protection bears mention as it is hard to know where
rights are being infringed and accordingly, which laws shall apply. However, we would
tend to believe in principle, that as defendant would be the owner of the server, it should
be the laws and forum of the place where this is located that would be applicable.
Résumé
Mexique en reste pas dehors du processus de globalisation, lequel a eu un très important
impact dans le domain des communications. La World Wide Web est un bon exemple de
comment l'information peut aujourd'hui traverser le frontières sans limitations. Dans cette
nouvelle ère les serveurs fonctionnent comme des récepteurs de correspondance, et le
nome du domain fonctionne comme ses adresses, comme si on parlait du nom de la rue
où une maison, bureau ou bâtiment est localisé. Les noms du domain ont ses propres
particularités, même s'ils partagent des caractéristiques avec d'autres formes pour identifier les localisations tels que les numéraux de téléphone. Les noms des domains peuvent
servir comme des marques du fait qu'ils sont utilisés pour avoir accès aux websites qui
offrent et annoncent ta vente de produits ou services. Ce fait put être accepté par la Loi
Mexicaine, pourtant en même temps il faudrait tenir en compte que pour autoriser la protection d'une marque, le nom du domain doit être utilisé par rapport à la vente des pro-
191
duits ou l'offre de services. En tout cas, si les noms du domaine sont utilisés pour exécuter les fonctions d'une marque, ils doivent donc remplir avec les principes de la Loi Mexicaine de Marques.
NIC MEXICO est une entité de droit privé qui prend à sa charge l'enregistrement de noms
du domain.mx, et qui a suivi certaines politiques, la quelle en ce qui concerne les marques, a adopté un attitude passive face aux autres enregistrements dans le monde. C'est
donc désirable que les règles protègent mieux l'enregistrement des noms du domain.
Les stipulations de la concurrence déloyale peuvent représenter des instruments légaux
suffisants pour faire exécuter l'usage non autorisé des noms du domain comme des marques, puis que l'usage non-autorisé est un concept très large qui n'exige pas nécessairement que le nom du domain soit utilisé en rapport à la vente des produits et services.
L'aspect territorial de la protection des noms du domain doit être mentionné puisque c'est
difficile à savoir où le droits sont violés, et donc quelles lois doivent être appliquées.
Néanmoins, on a la tendance à croire en principe, que puisque le défendeur serait le propriétaire du serveur, ce sont alors les lois et forum du lieu où il est localisé qui devraient
être appliqués.
Zusammenfassung
Mexiko ist vom Globalisierungsprozess, der einen grossen Einfluss auf das Gebiet der
Kommunikation genommen hat, nicht ausgeschlossen. Das 'World Wide Web" ist ein gutes Beispiel dafür, wie Informationen nun ohne Einschränkungen über die Grenzen gehen.
In dieser neuen Ära übernehmen die Server die Funktion eines Korrespondenzempfängers, bei dem der "Domain" Name als Adresse fungiert, so als ob wir von einer Strasse
reden auf der ein bestimmtes Haus, Bürogebäude oder andere Gebäude stehen. Die
"Domain" Namen haben bestimmte Eigenheiten, obwohl sie auch Eigenschaften mit anderen Arten der Lageidentifikation teilen wie zum Beispiel Telefonnummern. Die "Domain"
Namen können als Markennamen dienen da sie dazu verwendet werden, um Zugang zu
einem Website zu bekommen, der den Verkauf und Werbung von Produkten und Leistungen anbietet. Dies mag unter mexikanischem Recht zu akzeptieren sein. Jedoch müsste
gleichzeitig erwogen werden, dass der "Domain" Name in Verbindung mit dem Verkauf
von Produkten oder der Erbringung von Leistungen verwendet werden muss, um Anspruch auf Markenschutz erheben zu können. Falls die "Domain" Namen Markenfunktion
übernehmen sollen, müssen sie die Prinzipien der Markenschutzgesetze erfüllen.
NIC MEXICO ist ein privates Unternehmen, welches .mx "Domain" Namen registriert. Was
Markennamen betrifft, haben wir eine passive Haltung angenommen wie auch andere
Registerführer auf der Welt. Es ist jedoch wünschenswert, dass die Reglements die Registrierung von "Domain" Namen besser schützen sollten.
Vorschriften über unlauteren Wettbewerb können adäquate legale Instrumente sein, um
die Wahrung der Rechte im Falle nicht genehmigter Verwendung von "Domain" Namen
als Marken zu gewähren, da es sich hier um ein weitläufigeres Konzept handelt, bei dem
der "Domain" Name nicht zwangsläufig in Verbindung mit dem Verkauf von Produkten
odGr Leistungen verwendet werden muss.
192
Es ist wichtig den territorialen Aspekt des Schutzes der "Domain" Namen zu erwähnen, da
es schwierig ist zu wissen, wo Rechte verletzt werden und folglich welche Gesetze angewendet werden sollen. Da der Beklagte der Besitzer des Servers sein wird, sollten die Gesetze und Gerichte jenes Ortes, an dem der Server steht, angewendet werden.
193
Netherlands
Pays-Bas
Niederlande
Report Q 143
in the name of the Dutch Group
by M.D. BOULOGNE, S.J.H. GIJRATH, W.J. van HATTUM, M.C.D. KRANTZ,
E.A. MOUT-Bouwman, D. van OOSTVEEN, PL. REESKAMP, D.J.G. VISSER,
G.S.P. VOS, H.W. WEFERS BETTINK (Chairman)
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
General introduction
The Benelux Merkenwet (Benelux Trademark Act, BTA) contains the trademark law applicable to The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.
Under the BTA any sign which has a distinctive character may be a trademark. Apart from
that, almost anything can be a trademark: a word, a logo, a picture, an abbreviation, a
number, a form and possibly even sounds, gestures and smells (article I BTA).
Trademark rights are obtained by filing an application for the trademark with the Benelux
Merkenbureau (article 3 paragraph I BTA). The trademark may be invoked as from the
date on which it has been filed with the Benelux Merkenbureau (article 12A BTA). The
Benelux Merkenbureau will refuse to register a trademark which is purely descriptive or a
generic designation (article 6bis, I BTA), as well as a trademark which is misleading or
which is contrary to the public morale or public order (articles 4, 1 and 2 BTA).
An older trademark prevails over a younger trademark which has been registered for the
same or similar goods or services, if there is a likelihood of association with the public
between the two trademarks. An older trademark also prevails over a younger trademark
registered for other goods or services if the trademark is reputed in the Benelux and if the
use without due cause of the younger trademark may take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the older trademark (article 3, paragraph 2 BTA).
The BTA, therefore, has a first to file system, but no right is obtained in case of an application in bad faith (article 4, 6 BTA). This may for instance be the case if a similar trademark has already been in use in the Benelux during the three years prior to the application, while the applicant knew or should have known this when he applied for the trademark. In that case, the prior user may invoke the nullity of the application (article 14A
BTA).
194
If the trademark owner does not directly or indirectly use a trademark for a period of five
years the validity lapses (article 5 paragraph 2 BTA). Any interested party may request
cancellation of such trademark (article 14C BTA).
The trademark owner may oppose any use of his trademark or a similar sign for similar
goods or services (article 13A BTA). The criteria of article 3, paragraph 2 BTA, set out
above, apply accordingly. In addition, the trademark owner may oppose any other use of a
similar trademark if such use without due course takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark.
Under the Dutch Trade Name Act (DTA) a tradename is the name under which an enterprise conducts its business (article 1). A tradename does not require distinctive character
in order to be valid, like a trade trademark, but lack of distinctiveness implies that the
tradename holder cannot oppose the use of other, similar, tradenames.
The DTA in principle is restricted to Dutch tradenames (i.e. tradenames of companies doing business in The Netherlands), but under special circumstances a tradename of a foreign company may also be protected. In particular, such a tradename should be wellknown with the relevant public.
The right to a tradename is acquired by its use. Registration of a tradename with the
Trade Registrar of the local Chamber of Commerce is required, but does not in itself yield
a right to that tradename.
The holder of a tradename may oppose the use of a younger similar tradename if as a
consequence thereof there is a likelihood of confusion among the public. In this context
the nature of the activities of both enterprises and the location where they do their business should be taken into account (article 5 DTA).
A tradename may be invalid if it misleads with respect to the ownership of the enterprise
(article 3 DTA), with respect to the legal entity (article 4 DTA) or in relation to the nature,
character or status of the enterprise (article 5b DTA).
Are domain names trademarks or trade names?
There seems to be little doubt both in caselaw and in literature in the Benelux that trademark and tradename legislation in principle applies to use of domain names.1 However, a
further analysis of the legal character of a domain name is necessary in order to determine which law (BTA, DTA or other) applies in principle. The central question is whether
(use of) a domain name in a particular case meets the requirements for (use of) a trademark or for a tradename. The legal nature of a domain name may also be important in
order to decide whether use of the domain name constitutes prior use which may render a
later application for a similar trademark null and void because of bad faith. lt is also important in order to establish whether use of a domain name has contributed to the maintenance of the validity of a trademark and to establish whether a domain name is infringing
a right to a Dutch tradename or a Benelux trademark. In case of infringement of trademark
Prof. Mr D.W.F. Verkade, Internet-Domeinnamen, Merkenrecht en Handelsnaamrecht, Computerrecht 1997/1, page 3; A.P. Meyboom, noot in Computerrecht 1997/1, page 22.
195
rights, it is also important to decide for which activities or goods or services the domain
name is being used.
Although the domain name originally had the function of an internet address, it is now
widely accepted that it is a sign which may serve as a trademark or tradename. There is a
wide spread practise for companies to use either a trademark or a tradename as a domain
name. However, as set out above, it remains important to establish in each case the precise legal character of the domain name.
In our view, the contents of the website are decisive to determine this legal character.
If a website itself is a product - for instance if it contains an electronic publication or an
electronic search engine, like AltaVista or HotBot - the domain name in our view will be
used as a trademark to distinguish that product. This will probably also be the case if the
domain name in question would differ from the name of the product. For instance, the domain name ffly.com gives access to the well-known FireFly search facility. In our view, the
public will probably see ffly.com as a name used to distinguish the FireFly service and
therefore as a trademark.
Likewise, in Ouders Online the President of the Amsterdam District Court has decided that
use of the domain name ouders.nl for access to a website containing the electronic magazine Ouders Online, should be considered use of a trademark for that product.2
If websites are used to enable users to order a product, different situations may occur.
If the website contains information on one product and the domain name is identical to the
trademark of that product, in our view the domain name will be perceived by the public as
being used for that product. This may also be the case, if the website contains other, but
similar goods or services. If the website contains a variety of goods and the domain name
corresponds to the trademark of one these goods only, that domain name may perhaps be
more likely to be perceived as either giving access to electronic information on those
products - therefore as a trademark for electronic information or provision thereof - or as a
tradename, if the website can be seen as a sort of shop. Likewise, domain names like
amazon.com and cdshop.com which give access to websites offering books and cds respectively for sale, will probably be seen by the public as use of a tradename.
These examples illustrate the importance - and difficulty - of establishing in each case the
legal nature of a domain name: trademark, tradename or something else.
Where is the domain name used?
In order for the BTA to apply to the use of a domain name, such use has to take place on
Benelux territory. In Labouchère the President of the Amsterdam District Court applied the
BTA to the domain name labouchère.com and several other.com domain names, which in
his opinion infringed the rights to the corresponding Benelux trademarks.3 The decision
2
President District Court Amsterdam, 20 September 1996, 1ER 1996/6, page 227; Computerrecht
1997/1, page 22.
3
Labouchère/f MG, President District Court Amsterdam, 15 May 1997, 1ER 1997/4, p.156
196
does not give insight into the reasoning of the President. The decision is, however, supported by the decision of the Dutch Supreme Court in Lexington under the old Dutch
Trademark Act. This case concerned the question whether the use of the trademark Lexington in an advertisement in the international magazine Life could be considered use in
The Netherlands.4
In its decision the Dutch Supreme Court held that there will be deemed to be use of a
trademark in the Netherlands, if it appears from the circumstances of the case that the
trademark use is also directed at the Netherlands. In Lexington the issue was whether Life
infringed Lexington's Benelux trademark rights by publishing an advertisement for Lexington cigarettes in its international magazine. In particular due to the fact that 8,000 copies of Life magazine were distributed in The Netherlands, while the price of the magazine
was also given in Dutch guilders, the Dutch courts assumed trademark use in The Netherlands, and therefore trademark infringement.
Applied to domain names, the language of the website and the currency used (where
products are offered on the website) would be factors to determine whether the website is
also aimed at the Benelux.
Comments to the Lexington doctrine
Under the Lexington doctrine use of a domain name will often qualify as trademark use in
the Benelux, since:
by its very nature the WWW is world wide and therefore a website is also directed
at the Benelux countries;
the information on a website is in most cases in English, a language generally understood by the Benelux public.
As Verkade5 sets out, such an application of Lexington would have the undesired effect
that the Benelux Trademark Act would apply to practically all Internet information. For this
reason, Verkade proposes to fine tune the Lexington doctrine by requiring that there will
be deemed to be use of a trademark in the Benelux only if the information creates the impression with the relevant public that it is (also) specifically directed at the Benelux. The
above applies accordingly to application of the Dutch Tradename Act ("DTA").
Factors which may be important in this respect are the language of the website (Dutch,
French, German or English are languages spoken and/or generally understood in The
Netherlands), whether any offer at the website is aimed at the public in the Benelux or The
Netherlands respectively (which may be evident from the currency in which prices are
quoted or the address or telephone number where information can be obtained or orders
can be placed) and the number of visitors of the website who have the nationality of one of
the Benelux countries or (in case of the DTA) The Netherlands. The latter may be derived
4
HR 3 January 1964, NJ 1964, 445 (Lexington).
5
Verkade, oc., p. 3; see also Verkade, Bescherming van buitenlandse handeisnamen en diensten,
Bijblad Industriële Eigendom 1997, nr. 1, pages 58-60.
197
from the log records of the server which holds the relevant website and which (inter alia)
registers the country top level domain (in this case:.be,.lux or.nl) of the servers of the Internet Providers whose subscribers have visited the relevant website.
Question (a)
The Groups are invited to comment on the above described endeavours:
-
to prevent legal domain name problems by adoption of stricter registration conditions (cfr. hereinabove 1.12);
to solve such problems outside the courts (cfr. 1.13 a.f.) and
to report on the endeavours and actual measures already taken in their own countiy or region, as well as to make their own suggestions of comparable measures or
other solutions of the specific domain name problems.
Introduction
We believe that domain name problems are not essentially different from "normal" conflicts between trademarks, trade names and/or other signs and names, such as the names
of pop groups or non-profit organizations.
Domain names are either used as trademarks, trade names or other signs or names. They
should, therefore, be subject to the relevant national legislation. The fact that domain
names, as a consequence of the international nature of Internet, are being used
'everywhere' implies that they may in principle be subject to the relevant legislation in
every jurisdiction. The national court must decide, on the basis of national International
Private Law, whether the case before it indeed is subject to national legislation. In theory,
this might lead to a situation where courts in different states declare themselves competent and, possibly, render incompatible judgments. This effect is in the context of the
European Union (partly) offset by the conventions on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of
Judgements (Brussels 1968; Lugano 1988) which require a court not to hear a case which
has earlier been brought before a court in another state party to the Brussels or Lugano
Convention. At present there does not appear to be a realistic alternative to this situation.
A theoretical alternative is that the relevant national laws are harmonized to a great extent
and that there would be an international arbitrator or court which could render final judgment, overriding the decisions of national courts. Already in view of the wide differences
between national laws on trademarks, this seems unrealistic.
Proposals for international solutions seem to disregard these facts. Furthermore, those
proposals overemphasize the problems resulting from the traditional approach referred to
above. In effect, until now there are to our knowledge no conflicting judgments in domain
name conflicts.
Stricter conditions
Stricter registration conditions will arguably lead to more rather than less legal conflicts.
198
Stricter conditions would in particular refer to the requirement that a domain name may not
infringe the prior right of a third party in a similar trademark, trade name or other sign or
name. This would require the registrar to judge each application. This will add a forum for
deciding such conflicts, as parties will also have recourse to a court. In fact, the domain
name registrar would be asked to apply national trademark law and national rules concerning trade names and other signs and names. Furthermore, international private law
issues will be involved if the domain name corresponds with a foreign trademark, trade
name or other sign or name (including foreign domain names). These are exactly the rules
that courts would have to apply.
lt should be acknowledged that, as a rule, institutions like domain name registrars
("naming authorities") are not equipped to judge such conflicts. Likewise, the Benelux
Trademark Act does not require the Benelux Trademark Office to judge whether an application for trademark infringes prior rights in the Benelux. Nor does the Trade Name Act
require the Chambers of Commerce, which administer the local company registers, to
judge such conflicts with respect to trade names being registered.
Domain name grabbing
With respect to the prevention of domain name grabbing, one could perhaps consider to
require that only trademarks and trade names may be registered as domain names. Domain name applicants would then be required to submit a copy of their trademark certificate or an extract from the relevant register of the Chamber of Commerce. However, we
recognize that this hurdle to domain name grabbing may be easily overcome. In many
countries, there are no restrictions on registration of trade names, while the costs for such
registration are low. In addition, a persistent domain name grabber may wish to afford the
costs of a trademark registration in order to be able to register a particular domain name.
On the other hand, in some countries registration of trade names is not possible, while in
others it may take years before a trademark registration certificate is issued.
Additional questions
Limiting domain names to trademarks and tradenames also raises the more principled
question whether e.g. fantasy names, surnames or descriptive words should indeed be
excluded from being (part of) a domain name. Another question would be whether a registrar of a national TLD should accept only national trademark and trade name registrations, or also foreign ones.
Conclusion
In conclusion, restricting domain name registration by limiting domain names to trademarks and trade names, seems to raise more problems than it solves.
Solution outside national courts?
lt follows from the above that we do not believe that the conflicts should be solved outside
courts. On the contrary, national courts are best equipped to deal with conflicts between
domain names, trademarks and similar rights.
199
Question (b) i
Can a domain name be a suitable candidate for trademark protection, and if so, under
which conditions? Please elaborate on the specific problems or peculiarities which may
arise in that respect.
A domain name, like any other sign, may be protected as a trademark upon registration
with the Benelux Trademark Office. Signs which are merely descriptive, which are misleading or which offend public morale or public order will be refused for registration by the
Benelux Merkenbureau.
Mere use of a domain name (or other sign) does not create trademark rights.
The main condition for registration as a trademark is that the domain name in question
serves to distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise. In Burberry's Il the BCJ has
added that a sign is a trademark if it can distinguish the goods and services involved from
the goods and services of other enterprises and is perceived and recognized as such
by the public.6 Therefore, the perception of the public is decisive.
In Juicy Fruit, the Benelux Court held that the opinion of the relevant public is decisive as
to whether a sign will be considered as a trademark.7
As set out in the General Introduction, in order to establish that a domain name serves to
distinguish goods or services (and, if so, which) the contents of the website should be
taken into account. Often, a domain name can and will be associated with either (the
trademark of) a product offered on the website. In that case, a domain name will be seen
by the public as distinguishing particular goods or services. This perception of the public is
strengthened by the fact that many trademark holders use domain names which are identical to their existing trademarks.
Question (b) ii
Can a domain name be a suitable candidate for tradename protection?
Whether a sign enjoys protection as a tradename under the Dutch Tradename Act ("DTA")
does not depend on registration but on the fact whether or not business is actually conducted under that name.
Referring to the answer to question (b)i, the contents of the website involved will be an
important factor in determining whether a particular domain name is being used as a trade
name or as a trademark (or as something else).
In Labouchère/IMG8 the President of the Rechtbank Amsterdam has decided that use of a
domain name in that case could be considered as tradename use, since this is the name
6
BenGH 16 december 1991, NJ 1992, 596 m.nt. DWFV (Burberry's II).
BenGH 5oktober 1982, NJ 1984, 71 m.nt. LWH.
8
See note 1.
200
under which the domain name holder addresses the public and therefore conducts business under this tradename.
This argument does not seem conclusive, since it equally applies to trademarks.
Question (c)
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trademarks also apply to domain
names (cfr. 2.5)?
Naturally, these rules apply only if the owner of a domain name registers his domain name
as a trademark in order to benefit from trademark protection. As set out in the General
Introduction, a reason for invalidity can be the lack of any distinctive character, that the
domain name offends public morale or public order or is likely to deceive the public.
The mere use of a domain name and the registration of a domain name with a naming
authority as such, are not subject to the wies on absolute invalidity of trademarks. However, it may be noted that the Dutch naming authority Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie
Nederland, refuses registration of domain names which are 'generic designations" which
may create a misunderstanding with the public, as well as domain names which offend
public morale or public order.
Question (d)
Can the prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark constitute sufficient use
in order to qualify the subsequent filing by another party of such trademark as a filing in
bad faith? If so, what are the requirements for such sufficient use?
As an exception to the basic principle of the BTA that only the first registration of a trademark will lead to an exclusive right, the first user of a trademark can claim the nullity of a
bad faith registration. Article 4 paragraph 6 BTA gives two exampies of a bad faith registration. lt is essential to establish that the applicant knew or should have known the prior
good faith use of the sign in the Benelux or, under special circumstances, abroad. Lack of
actual knowledge of prior use may be held against the applicant when such use is generally known in the relevant business circles.
Use of a domain name for a website may constitute prior use under art. 4 par. 6 BTA, if a)
the domain name is used as a trademark (see question (b) i above) and b) its use is perceived by the public to be (also) specifically aimed at the Benelux (see page 5 above).9
In order to establish whether the use of a domain name is generally known in the relevant
business circles to be held against the applicant of a trademark, one may look at, inter
alia, the notoriety of the web-site and its domain name, the accessibility of the site and the
amount of visitors of the site from the Benelux.1°
9
For completeness' sake it is mentioned that prior use of a tradename or (a sign which is neither a
trademark nor a tradename), may also provide a basis for legal action against a bad faith registration.
10
H.W. Wefers Bettink, Merken en domeinen in een digitale omgeving, in: S.J.H. Gijrath e.a. (red.),
lnfellectueel eigendom in digitaal perspectief, Aiphen a/d Rijn 1996, p. 71.
201
Question (e)
Can the use of a domain name as an IP-address of a sen/er on which products and/or
sen/ices are offered for which the domain name is registered as a trademark qualify as
maintaining use of that trademark?
As set out under question (b)i, use of a domain name may qualify as use of a trademark if
the domain name is used to distinguish goods and services of an enterprise in accordance
with article 1 BTA. The impression which the use makes on the relevant public is decisive.
See further question (f).
Question (f)
Is the requirement that maintaining use must occur in the territory of the trademark automatically met as a consequence of the global nature of the Internet? If not, please describe which further requirement must be met.
In our view use of a domain name as a trademark should only qualify as use in the Benelux, if such use is perceived by the public to be (also) specifically directed at the Benelux
(see page 5).
Use of a trademark may only serve to prevent the validity from lapsing through non-usus
(or: to maintain the validity of the trademark) if such use is made by the actual trademark
owner or an authorized user.11
A domain name on the Internet is often not used by the domain name owner but by a third
party. For instance, a domain name is used by the public when it types the URL of the
relevant website. Furthermore, domain names are used in hyperlinks on websites of third
parties. Such use by a third party cannot be considered as normal use necessary for the
maintenance of the trademark as indicated in article 5, paragraph 2 of the BTA. After all,
the hyperlinking in many cases takes place without express consent from the provider of
the website involved. Naturally, services and products may be downloaded from a
website, or may be ordered on the basis of a website offer or advertisement. However, in
such cases the maintaining use will be (primarily) through the trading of said goods and
services, which may be supported by use of the domain name.
Use of a domain name in a browser screen, or in newspaper, magazine, radio or television
advertising originating in the trademark owner, may be considered as maintaining use. In
order to actually maintain the validity of the trademark, the use should be considered
"normal", i.e. "usual and commercially sound".12
This involves a certain frequency and intensity of use which may be different for different
types of goods and services. For example, generic goods such as groceries, detergents,
cigarettes in short, products intended for the public at large will demand a much wider
and intensive use than tailor-made goods like spare parts to measure, computer systems,
airplanes, which are intended for a specialist and often expert public.
Hoge Raad 13 september 1996, NJ 1997, 312 m.nt. DWFV (Lido).
12
BenGH 27 januari 1981, NJ 1981, 333 m.nt. LWH (Whiston) refers to use of a trademark which is
considered customary and commercially sound. See also GielenM'ichers Hoeth, nr 578 e.v.
202
Question (g)
Can an Internet domain name infringe another party's rights to a trademark? If so, under
which conditions? Please elaborate on the scope of protection of Trademarks against domain names and deal in your answer also with famous and well-known Trademarks (cfr.
2.lOand 11)?
Introduction
Under article 13A1 BTA a trademark owner can oppose the use of a sign identical or
similar to his trademark which is being used for identical or similar goods or services
(subsections a and b). If the trademark is reputed, the owner may also oppose use for
other goods or services if the use thereof without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or
is detrimental to, the distinctive character of the repute of the trademark.
If the latter criterion is met, use of an identical or similar sign for other purposes (e.g. as a
trade name) may be opposed under subsection d. A defense for the suspected infringer in
case of subsections b, c and d is that the sign was used with due cause (e.g. because of
an older tradename right).
According to the Benelux Court of Justice trademarks are similar in the sense of the BTA
when, all circumstances taken into consideration, there is a risk of association, either in a
visual, in an auditive or conceptual way ('likelihood of association').13 Of special importance is the distinctive character a trademark (still) has.
However, this criterion differs from that included in articles 4(1)b and 5(1)b of the First
Council Trademark Directive, i.e. "that there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of
the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association between the
trademark and the sign". In order to clarify the meaning of this provision, in the Sabel y.
Puma case the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) has asked the
Court of Justice of the European Communities for guidance on the interpretation of the
notion 'confusion' between trademarks under Article 4(1 )(b) of the First Council Trademark
Directive.
On 29 April 1997 the Advocate General Jacobs advised the ECJ to reply:
"Article 4(1) b of the First Council Trademark Directive of 21 December 1988
must be interpreted as meaning that, while the likelihood of association with
an earlier mark is a factor to be taken into account, registration of a mark
cannot be opposed unless it is established that there is a genuine and prop-
erly substantiated likelihood of confusion about the origin of the goods or
services in question."14
13
BenGH 20 May 1983, NJ 1984, 72 (Union).
14
Case C-251/95 Sabel By. y. Puma AG., Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 29 April
1997, not yet published.
203
Domain names
Use of a domain name may be regarded as "any use" within the meaning or Article 1 3A1,
subsection d BTA. Use of a domain name may also be regarded as use of a trademark,
i.e. to distinguish particular goods or services. On the basis of the relevant caselaw the
impression of the relevant public is decisive to decide whether a domain name in a particular case is used as a trademark. In Omnisport the BCJ decided that the (method of)
use of the trademark should be such that the public understands such use to refer to particular goods or services marketed by the trademark user, which are distinguished by such
use from other goods or services.15 As set out above, such use for goods or services may
be opposed on the basis of article 13A1 subsections a, b or c BTA. Thus the Amsterdam
Court of Appeal in the Ouders Online16 assumed that the use of a domain name to designate the location on the Internet of an electronic magazine must be regarded as use of a
sign for goods within the meaning of Article 1 3A1, sub b BTA.
Question (h)
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that his use
of the domain name constitutes infringement of a trademark in territories where the domain name holder has no commercial interests? Please elaborate on the contents of e.g.
disclaimers (cfr. 2.12).
Introduction
lt may be self-explanatory that there is no disclaimer issue if there is no trademark infringement at all.17
For the requirements for trademark infringement, see question g. In order to answer the
question it is useful to clarify the issues by the following (imaginary) case:
a US company called "Scientific Data Unlimited, Inc." uses the domain name
'SDU.COM" for rendering electronic documents delivery world wide. The web site
of Scientific Data Unlimited, Inc. can be accessed also in the Benelux by entering
the domain name "SDU.COM".
However, in the Benelux there is a well known publisher of, inter alia, scientific pub-
lications, both on paper and on electronic mediums, which is called 'SDU". SDU
has a Benelux trademark registration "SDU" and enjoys protection under the Dutch
Tradename Act as well for its tradename "SDU".
Assuming that SDU-Benelux in principle can successfully oppose the use of the
domain name "SDU.COM" on the basis of both its trademark and tradename rights,
15
BenGH 7 November 1988, NJ 1989, 300 (Omnisport). See also BenGH 20 December 1993, NJ
1994, 637 (ShelltvValhout), BenGH 16juni 1995 NJ 1995, 745 (Polyglot) and BenGH 20 december
1996, 1ER 1997/2, P. 72 (Europabank).
16
Amsterdam Court of Appeal, 24 April 1997, 1ER 1997/5 (Ouders Online Il)
17
Aside from the use of a disclaimer we have not identified other legal measures in order to prevent
infringement in territories where the domain name holder has no commercial interests.
204
the issue is whether Scientific Data Unlimited can escape infringement of SDUs
trademark rights and tradename rights by using a disclaimer.
Proposed rule
As to the use of disclaimers to avoid trademark and/or tradename infringement there is no
specific statutory law in the Netherlands, nor is there any relevant case law.
As to the possibility of using disclaimers we put forward the following propositions:
if no use of a disclaimer is allowed at all, taking into account the world wide scope
of Internet, it will often be virtually impossible not to infringe certain national trademark rights or tradename rights in one territory or another. In order not to frustrate
the use of Internet, allowing the possibility of a disclaimer is desirable;
on the other hand, the mere use of a disclaimer may not serve as "carte blanche"
for acts, which would otherwise constitute infringements. Therefore, the possibility
to use a disclaimer should be subjected to certain restrictions.
Application to domain names
With respect to domain names this leads to the following:
if it is uncertain whether the domain name and the website are (also) specifically
directed at the Benelux, a disclaimer may contribute to the conclusion that there is
no trademark infringement;
if the use of the domain name is (also) specifically directed at the Benelux, use of a
disclaimer will only be effective under special circumstances.
in other cases, a disclaimer would not be relevant, since Benelux trademark law
would not apply. However, in order to avoid any doubt, use of a disclaimer may be
recommendable.
Requirements for disclaimers
One can distinguish between two types of disclaimers:
a disclaimer for the purpose of avoiding use in a certain territory (e.g. "The products
offered on this site are not available for customers outside the United States"); and
a disclaimer for the purpose of avoiding confusion (e.g. "This is the website of Scientific Data Unlimited, Inc. We have no relation with SDU Benelux").
In order for a disclaimer to have the desired effect it should at least meet the following requirements:
a.
it should be sufficiently eye catching;
205
it should contain a sufficiently clear statement that the services or goods offered
under the domain name are not available (to residents) in the Benelux, or that they
are only available in a designated territory (e.g. the U.S.A.) not including the Benelux. lt goes without saying that the non-availability in the Benelux must be a matter
of fact and not a mere statement;
if the domain name holder is or should have been aware of the existence of the
Benelux trademark, the website should also explicitly indicate that the domain
name is not in any way related to that specific Benelux trademark owner.
Specifically directed at the Benelux; anti-confusion disclaimer still acceptable?
As indicated above, under exceptional circumstances a disclaimer may also be accepted
as effectively avoiding trademark infringement, even if the domain name and website are
specifically directed at the Benelux. This may be the case where an anti-confusion disclaimer has as a result that there is no (longer any) risk of confusion, and thus no trademark infringement in the Benelux.
Question (i)
What is the answer to the question raised hereinbe fore under 2.13 as to the use of a domain name on Internet for whatever product or service if that domain name is identical or
similar to a third party's mark which has been registered for means of communication?
The assumption underlying this question appears to be that a domain name could be regarded as a trademark for a means of communications, presumably the website. Indeed,
as (the Internet address containing) a domain name provides access to a website containing information in electronic form, one may perhaps argue that each domain name is
(also) being used for (provision of) electronic information, or for means of communications.
However, as set out above (see p. 3), domain names, depending on the contents of a
website, may also be considered to be used either as a) the trademark for the goods or
services offered or advertised at the website, or b) the trade name of the company on the
website. If the domain name is being used as a trademark for other goods or services than
means of communications, or as a tradename, it will only infringe the third party's mark
registered for means of communications on the conditions set out in article 13A1 subsection c BTA (see question (g) above).
Question (j)
Can the registration and use of an Internet domain name be sufficient to create, and
maintain, a tradename right to the second-level domain name included therein? Is, in view
of the global nature of the Internet, any use of a domain name which includes the company name of the domain name holder sufficient? If not, which additional requirements
need to be fulfilled?
Under the Dutch Tradename Act (DTA) a tradename is the name under which an enterprise actually conducts its business. If a domain name refers to the tradename of the enterprise, protection as a tradename is available if the domain name is perceived as a trade
name. This will primarily be based on the contents of the website (see page 3). It should
be added that foreign tradenames may be protected under the Dutch Tradename Act pro-
206
vided such foreign tradenames are sufficiently known in The Netherlands. Based on the
relevant caselaw one could argue that tradename protection under the DTA is also available for domain names, even if the relevant website is not (also) specifically aimed at The
Netherlands. A condition would be that it can be established that this domain name is wellknown in The Netherlands, e.g. by demonstrating that a considerable number of Dutch
visitors has accessed the website and that the company has advertised the domain name
in media distributed or broadcast and/or that there has been considerable free publicity in
such media.
Question (k)
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of tradenames also apply to domain
names (cfr. 3.4.)?
The Dutch Tradename Act ("DTA") provides in articles 3,4 and 5a that it is not allowed to
use a tradename which is misleading as to the legal status of the ownership of an enterprise or which is liable to mislead the public about its business. In contrast to trademarks,
lack of distinctive character is not a ground for invalidity of a tradename.
As the DTA applies to all tradenames under which an enterprise conducts its business,
the use of a domain name would also subject to the DTA, if it may be considered to constitute use of a tradename (see question (j)).
lt follows that a domain name used as a tradename is not permissible if such use is misleading as to the ownership of that enterprise or when such use is liable to mislead the
public about the business conducted by this enterprise.
Question (I)
Does the global nature of the Internet imply that the normal criteria of infringement of a
tradename apply to any use of an identical or similar domain name? Or must there be a
specific relation (of some soit) between your Group's countiy or region and the use of the
domain name (or the offerings which are made on the seiver of which the domain name is
the address)?
In our opinion, if a domain name is used as a tradename (see question j) and the domain
name and/or the website creates the impression among the relevant public to be (also)
specifically aimed at the Netherlands, the use of the domain name will be subject to the
Dutch Tradename Act.
Question (m)
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that his use
of the domain name infringes another party's tradename in territories where the domain
name holder has no (significant) commercial interests? Again: would the use of a disclaimer be effective? If so, please elaborate on the contents of such disclaimer (cfr. 3.6.).
The answer to question (h) applies accordingly to the use of disclaimers under tradename
law (be it that "Benelux" should read "Netherlands").
207
Question (o)
Which sanctions can a court order against the holder of a domain name which in fringes
the trademark or tradename rights of another party or which is otherwise unlawful via-à-vis
said party? Please indicate whether the court has the power to directly order the transfer
of such domain name from the infringing party to the trademark/tradename owner.
Most trademark and tradename infringement cases are decided in summary proceedings,
which provides a cost efficient and swift method for stopping infringing use. If the infringement is established, the court will order an injunction or the use of the infringing sign,
on penalty of a fine fixed by the court. The court may also order an advance on damages
to be paid. Full damages, transfer of a trademark, and cancellation of a trademark should
in principle be demanded in full proceedings.
In summary proceedings a court can order the same sanctions against (the user of a) domain name infringing a Benelux trademark or a Dutch trade name right. An injunction with
a penalty fine may be an effective means against (the user of) a domain name registered
under a foreign TLD.
Cancellation and transfer of a domain name should meet the regulations of the Dutch
Naming Authority, which will execute a final court order in which cancellation is ordered.
The transfer of a domain name is left to the parties, so that the court order should contain
language to effect the transfer between the parties. Foreign court orders will not normally
be accepted, unless enforced in accordance with the relevant national rules. This would
also seem to apply in other countries, which may hamper enforcement of a judgement in
the Benelux against the owner of acorn domain name.
An inventive solution has been given by the President of the Amsterdam District Court in
Labouchère/IMG where the infringing.com domain name holder was ordered to transfer
the relevant.com domain name registrations on penalty of a fine fixed by the court. lt
should be noted that this far reaching decision was given in summary proceedings.
Question (p)
Which rules of Dutch international private law apply in order to determine the applicable
law in a dispute regarding the infringement of a trademark or tradename by an Internet
domain name?
Since trademark and tradename rights are territorial rights, under Dutch international private law the applicable law is the law of the territory for which protection is sought. This is
the territory where the protection sought is to have effect.
For trademarks this is the territory of the Benelux which is considered one territory under
the BTA (although it includes Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg). Consequently,
if trademark protection is sought for (part of) the Benelux, the BTA applies.
Question (q)
Which international private law rules apply in order to determine which court is competent
to deal with the abovementioned dispute?
208
Trademark disputes
Pursuant to Article 37 of the BTA jurisdiction in respect of trademark disputes shall, in
principle, be determined by the domicile of the defendant or by the place where the legal
obligation giving rise to the litigation originated or was or is to be performed. In practice,
most trademark disputes are decided by the court of (one of) the District(s) where the infringement occurs. If the aforementioned rule is insufficient for the determination of jurisdiction, the plaintiff may file the action before the court of his domicile or, if he has no
domicile within the Benelux territory, before the courts of Brussels, The Hague or Luxembourg, at his discretion.
lt should be noted that Article 37 BTA prevails over the Brussels (Lugano) Convention on
Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments pursuant to Article 57 of that Convention.
In domain name cases, the Internet infringement occurs everywhere in the Benelux, if the
relevant website and/or domain names are (also) specifically aimed at (the public in) that
territory.
Application of Article 37 BTA in a case where a Dutch trademark holder wants to sue a
foreign domain name holder for infringement of the former's Benelux trademark, will have
as a result that, as a rule, every (district) court in The Netherlands is competent to deal
with the case.
Tradename disputes
Since the DTA does not contain a specific provision on the competent court, general rules
of Dutch international private law apply.
If the foreign domain name holder is located in a state which is a party to the Brussels
(Lugano) Convention, said convention applies. In order to avoid overlap with other Brussels (Lugano) Convention member state reports we will not elaborate on the various competence rules set forth in the Brussels (Lugano) Convention. The basic rule is that the
court of the Brussels (Lugano) Convention member state in which the defendant is located
is the competent court.
If the foreign domain name holder is not located in a state which is a party to the Brussels
(Lugano) Convention, Article 126 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") applies. In
particular Article 126.3 CCP is relevant. Pursuant to said Article, a plaintiff can file suit
before the court of its own domicile, if the defendant is not domiciled (or actually residing)
in The Netherlands. Under Dutch law, courts usually require the plaintiff to show an additional connection with The Netherlands. As a rule, it is sufficient for this purpose to demonstrate that the provisional measure or court order ought to be effected in The Netherlands.
209
Annex to the report of the Netherlands AIPPI Group on Question Q 143
This annex contains a translation of the text of several articles of the Benelux Merkenwet
(Benelux Trademark Act), referred to in the report.
Article 2 BTA
The right in a mark shall be declared to have lapsed within the limits set by article 14C:
In so far as no normal use has been made of the mark on the Benelux territory for
(a)
the goods for which the mark is registered, without valid reason, during an interrupted period of five years;
(...)
Article 3 BTA
Without prejudice to the rights of priority provided for in the Paris Convention for the Pro-
tection of Industrial Property or in the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Marks, an exclusive right to a mark shall be obtained by the first filing made
within the Benelux territory (Benelux filing) or resulting from a registration with the International Bureau for the Protection of Industrial Property (international filing).
Article 4, 1 BTA
No right to a trademark shall be obtained by, among other things:
the filing of a mark that, regardless of the use being made thereof, is contrary to morality
or public order in one of the Benelux countries, or in respect of which Article 6ter of the
Paris Convention provides for refusal or invalidation;
an application made for goods or services in respect of which use of the mark is likely to
deceive the public;
Article 4, 6 BTA
application in bad faith, inter alia:
application effected by a person who knows or has no valid excuse for not knowing
that within the preceding three years a third party has, in good faith and normally
used a similar mark for similar goods and services in the Benelux, and the third
party has not given its consent;
application filed by a person who, as a result of a direct relationship with a third
party, knows that during the preceding three years the third party has, in good faith
and normally used a similar for similar goods or services outside the Benelux, unless the third party has given its consent, or unless such knowledge was obtained
only after the person filing the application had started to use the mark within the
Benelux.
Article 5(2) BTA
The following shall be considered individual marks: designations, designs, prints, seals,
letters, numbers, shapes of goods or their get-up, and any other symbols which serve to
distinguish the goods or services of an enterprise.
210
Article 6bis(1) BTA
The Benelux Trademark Office shall refuse to register a filing when it considers that:
(a) the sign as filed does not constitute a mark within the meaning of Article 1, particularly
due to lack of any distinctive character as provided in Article 6quinquies B(2) of the Paris
Convention;
Article 13A1 BTA
(...) The trademark owner may oppose on the basis of his exclusive right:
any use in the course of trade, of a mark for the goods (or services) it is registered;
any use in the course of trade, without due cause, of a mark or a similar sign for the
goods it is registered for or for similar goods, if consequently the possibility exists
that an association between the sign and the mark is created among the public;
any use in the course of trade, without due cause, of a well-known mark or similar
sign within the Benelux, for goods which are not similar to the goods the mark is
registered for, if use of such sign takes unfair advantage or is detrimental to the
distinctive character or the repute of the mark;
any use in the course of trade, without due cause, of a mark or of a similar sign in
any other way than to distinguish goods if use of such sign takes unfair advantage
or is detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the mark;
Sum mary
Use of domain names gives rise to several fundamental questions. First of all, it should be
established in each individual case where the domain name is being used, in order to decide whether the relevant national legislation applies. The Netherlands Group believes
that in order for national legislation to apply, the domain name and/or the website should
create the impression with the relevant public that they are (also) specifically directed at
the national territory.
As a next step, it is necessary to determine whether the domain name is being used as a
trademark or as a tradename (or any other signs), in order to decide which legislation applies. In this respect, the perception of the public is decisive. In our view, the contents of
the website should be included to determine whether a domain name is a trademark or a
tradename (or a different sign) in a particular case.
With respect to future developments, such as stricter registration conditions and the creation of dispute resolution procedures outside the national courts, the Group emphasizes
that domain name problems are not essentially different from "normal" trademark or tradename conflicts. Stricter registration conditions will arguably lead to more rather than less
legal conflicts, which will be decided by an authority (the Domain Name Registrar) who is
not normally equipped to handle such cases.
The Group believes that new dispute resolution procedures - such as those proposed by
the Internet Society for the new generic Top Level Domains - will only add a layer to the
existing dispute resolution structure. Furthermore, in the Group's opinion, national courts
are better equipped to deal with conflicts between domain names, trademarks, tradenames and similar rights than the new institutions proposed by the Internet Society.
211
Résumé
L'utilisation des noms de domaine a soulevé plusieurs questions fondamentales. Tout
d'abord, il doit être établi pour chaque cas particulier où le nom de domaine est utilisé afin
de déterminer si la législation nationale applicable est d'application. Le Groupe Pays-Bas
pense que pour que la législation nationale s'applique, le nom de domaine et/ou le site
Web doivent donner l'impression au public qu'ils visent (aussi) spécifiquement le territoire
national.
li est nécessaire ensuite de déterminer si le nom du domaine est utilisé comme marque de
fabrique ou comme nom commercial (ou tout autre signe) afin de déterminer la législation
applicable. A cet égard, la perception du public est décisive. Nous pensons que les informations du site Web doivent être intégrées pour déterminer si un nom de domaine est une
marque de fabrique ou un nom commercial (ou un signe différent) dans un cas particulier.
Pour ce qui est des changements à venir, tels que l'application de conditions d'enregistrement plus strictes et la création de procédures de résolution des litiges en dehors des
tribunaux nationaux, le Groupe souligne le fait que les problèmes liés aux noms de domaine ne sont pas fondamentalement différents des litiges "normaux" portant sur des
marques de fabrique ou des noms commerciaux. On peut soutenir que l'introduction de
conditions d'enregistrement plus strictes entraînera plutôt une augmentation qu'une diminution des litiges légaux, lesquels litiges seront arbitrés par une autorité (le Bureau d'Enregistrement des Noms de Domaine) qui n'est pas équipée en principe pour s'occuper de
ce genre de cas.
Le Groupe pense que les nouvelles procédures de résolution des litiges, telles que celles
qui ont été proposées par la société Internet pour les nouveaux Top Level Domains génériques, ne feront qu'ajouter un niveau supplémentaire à la structure existante de résolution
des litiges. Par ailleurs, le Groupe est d'avis que les tribunaux nationaux sont mieux équipés pour arbitrer les litiges portant sur les noms de domaine, les marques de fabrique, les
noms commerciaux et autres droits similaires que les nouvelles institutions proposées par
la société.
Zusammenfassung
Die Benutzung von Domänennamen ist Anlass für verschiedene Grundsatzfragen. Zuerst
sollte jeder einzelne Fall der Benutzung eines Domänennamens geprüft werden, um entscheiden zu können, ob die relevante, nationale Gesetzgebung anwendbar Ist. Die nie-
derländische Gruppe ist der Meinung, dass der Domännamen und/oder die Web-Site
beim relevanten Publikum den Eindruck erwecken sollte, dass sie sich (auch) insbesonde-
re auf das nationale Territorium richtet/richten, damit die nationale Gesetzgebung anwendbar ist.
Als nächster Schritt muss festgestellt werden, ob der Domänname als Marke oder als
Handelsname (oder als ein anderes Zeichen) benutzt wird, um die anwendbare Gesetz212
gebung bestimmen zu können. In dieser Hinsicht ist die Auffassung des Publikums entscheidend. Unserer Meinung nach sollten die Inhalte der Web-Site für die Entscheidung,
ob ein Domänenname in einem bestimmten Fall eine Marke oder ein Handelsname (oder
ein anderes Zeichen) ist, berücksichtigt werden.
Was die zukünftigen Entwicklungen betrifft, wie strengere Registriewngsbedingungen und
die Schaffung von Verfahren für die Schlichtung von Streitsachen ausserhalb der nationalen Gerichte, so betont die Gruppe, dass sich die Probleme mit Domännamen nicht we-
sentlich von anderen Streitsachen über Marken oder Handelsnamen unterscheiden.
Strengere Registrierungsbedingungen werden sicher eher zu mehr als zu weniger
Rechtsstreiten führen, die von einer Behörde (der Registrierung von Domännamen) zu
entscheiden sind, die normalerweise nicht für die Behandlung solcher Fälle ausgestattet
ist.
Die Gruppe ist der Meinung, dass neue Schlichtungsverfahren - wie die von der Internet
Society für die neuen allgemeinen Top Level Domains vorgeschlagen werden - der vorhandenen Schlichtungsstruktur nur eine weitere Schicht hinzufügen werden. Darüber hinaus sind die nationalen Gerichte, der Gruppe zufolge, besser ausgestattet, um Streitsachen zwischen Domännamen, Marken, Handelsnamen und ähnlichen Rechten zu behandeln, als die neuen, von der Internet Society vorgeschlagenen Institutionen.
213
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Report Q 143
by the Paraguayan Group
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
Introduction
In Paraguay, the domain names are assigned by national institutions (National Uni-
versity of Asuncion and the Catholic University), adopting a passive attitude in
contends between holders of domain names and owners of trademarks or commer-
cial names that are identical or similar. This is, as simple registering institutions,
preferring to keep independent to act as arbitrators in contends about domain
names.
Through the Act No. 188/97 of the Consejo Nacional de Telecomunicaciones
(Conatel - National Telecommunications Council), the Regulation for Internet Service was approved, which has as a goal to establish the dispositions for the regulation of granting of licenses, installation, operation and working of Internet Service.
In the said act there is no mention related to domain names assigned nor the possible conflicts.
In our country the effective steps have not been taken. However, we understand
that the implementation of more severe conditions for the registration of domain
names, including the obligation of declaring and demonstrating that the second
level of domain of the requested name corresponds to a trademark or commercial
name of the requester, could contribute to the prevention of conflicts about domain
names.
The answer of the National Group is based on interpretation criterion, since we do
not have special laws or local jurisprudence about the matter.
Law of Trademarks
A domain name can be considered as a candidate for the protection of trademarks,
if the part of the second level domain is already used, or even it can be already
registered as a trademark, independently of the registration and use of the domain
name. Law No. 751/79 states in Art. ist. that numbers and words and/or letters can
be trademarks.
214
The same causes of absolute nullity of a trademark, included in the Agreement of
Paris, would be applied if the finality is the trademark protection for domain names.
Priority is acquired through "date and time of submission", except for the case of
notorious trademarks or that in which the requester must have known that the
trademark was in use and bad faith can be demonstrated. The prior use of a domain name that includes a trademark shall not be considered as sufficient use to
qualify the subsequent presentation as bad faith. The registration of a domain name
does not create any priority right, according to the Agreement of Paris and our Law
of Trademarks.
and f)
In Paraguay, the use of a trademark is not necessary to keep the right.
The use domain name can be considered as a violation of a trademark rights, as far
as it is used in similar products and/or services, or a confuse similitude between the
products and/or services for which the trademark has been registered. A broader
protection for products and/or services not related and/or similar shall not be applicable, except for the case of famous trademarks. The violation shall occur inside
the country or in any country in which the trademark is registered.
We do not know about the steps that the owner of a domain name can take to prevent the use of his domain name to be considered as a violation of a trademark, in
areas where the owner of the domain name has no important commercial interests.
The recommended proviso that "the products and/or services offered to the market
through this company can not be acquired by residents in the following countries...',
could be effective, but we would obviously be facing a restraint in the rights of the
owner of the trademark.
Since Internet is a communication media, we understand that the use of a domain
name for any product or service identical or similar to a third's trademark, which has
been registered for communication media, is a violation to the trademark.
Commercial names
The registration of a commercial name is not necessary for the exercise of trademark rights, except in the case that it is used as a trademark of a part of it. (Art. 63,
Law No. 75 1/79). Therefore, if the domain name (second level) represents a commercial name that offer the products or services, it would be enough to create and
maintain a right of trademark on the domain name.
A commercial name shall not be formed by the denomination or sign which, due to
its natures or the use of it, are contrary the public moral or order, or which could
lead the media or consumers to misinterpretation, about the nature of the company
characterized with such name (Art. 62, Law No. 751/79). This means that the rules
about absolute nullity are also applicable.
I)
We understand that there must be a specific relationship, of any nature, between
the territory or even the region of the country or the offers, to cause the domain
name to be violating an identical or similar commercial name in any other country in
215
which such right exists. This providing that the commercial name is not a trademark
or a part of it (Art. 63, Law No. 751/79).
The prevention would be not allowing the residents of a determined territory the
access to a domain name, to prevent the violation due to the use of a commercial
name.
Unfair competition
The registration and use of a domain name identical or similar to a registered
trademark and/or commercial name can be successfully prevented using the general rules about unfair competition as a base. Bad faith is not required as requisite.
Punishment
The punishment would be in the civil field to cease the use, declaring null the registration of the domain name, and to get indemnification for damages. The Court shall
not be able to transfer the domain name from the violating party to the owner of the
trademark or commercial name.
International Private Law
The general rules of the international private law must be applied, in order to determine the qualified jurisdiction. Usually, it is the law of the territory in which the
protection is requested.
216
Republic of Korea
République de Corée
Republik Korea
Report Q 143
in the name of the Korean Group
by Young-Wook HA
International Domain Names, Trademarks and Trade Names
Introduction
(a)
The Groups are invited to comment on the above described endeavors;
to prevent legal domain name problems by adoption of stricter registration
conditions (cfr. Hereinabove 1.12);
lt has been reported that one Korean gentleman registered the name all the major
big groups of Korea to Internet and he eventually assigned his right to each groups
for free.
This report indicates that the unauthorized registration of second level domain
names which conflicts with eminent threat to the activities of Korean companies. lt
is, however, to note that no specific case has been rendered in the court to the issue of the conflict between domain names and the trademark owner.
lt is quite well accepted among the professionals that we need to have stricter reg-
istration conditions in order to prevent the pirating and warehousing of domain
names.
to solve such problems outside the courts (cfr. 1.13 a.f.); and to report on the
endeavors and actual measures already taken in their own count,',' or region,
as well as to make their own suggestions of comparable measures or other
solutions of the specific domain name problems.
In an open letter from the WIPO to the Internet community concerning domain
name dispute Resolution Procedures under the generic Top Level Domain (gTLD)Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), it is suggested to establish seven new
gTLD accompanied by an alternative Dispute Resolution system administered by
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.
In this line of development, we would prepare the amicus brief to the court suggesting the exploitation of the Dispute Resolution Board for Intellectual Property
Right established in Korea Industrial Property Office (KIPO) to deal with the
217
emerging problems in this gray area. As of today, KIPO would be the only governmental agency which the domain name problem has ever been recognized. Because there has been the conflict between the domain name and the trademark.
Trademark Law
Can a domain name be a suitable candidate for trademark protection, and if so,
under which conditions? Please elaborate on the specific problems or peculiarities
which may arise in that respect (cfr. 2.1-2.4).
If a domain name begins to be recognized as the source of the domain name
holder's product and services. Under the first file rule, regardless of the real function
of the mark, any combination of numbers and words and/or letters with distinctiveness to distinguish the goods or services of any legal entity can constitute a valid
trademark. Accordingly, any domain name which is registrable under the trademark
registration requirement must be registered separate to KIPO separate from domain
name registration authority.
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trademarks also apply to domain names (cfr. 2.5)?
The rules of absolute invalidity of trademark would also apply to the domain names
as long as the trademark protection is sought for domain names.
Can the prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark constitute su if!cient use in order to qualify the subsequent filing by another party of said trademark
as a filing in bad faith (cfr. 2.6 and 7)? If so, what are the requirements for such sufficient use?
Yes. Recently, KIPO prepared the final draft to add the specific ground for refusal of
trademark application to protect the real owner of the trademark from the bad faith
pre-filed application by third party. This rule may not applicable to this situation. As
a matter of principle under first file rule, the pre-registration in domain name authority for same product can be the good evidence to prove the fact that the applicant
using the identical or confusingly similar trademark has filed the application in bad
faith.
If the domain name activation date is prior to the applicant's third party's trademark
application date, the application can constitute as being the bad faith filing. Although, the use of domain name is technically different from the use of the trademark, the activation of domain name by others can be recognized as a constructive
notice for the public that the mark is used by others.
Can the use of a domain name as an IP-address of a seiver on which products
and/or services are offered for which the domain name is registered as a trademark
qualify as maintaining use of that trademark (cfr. 2.8 and 9)?
218
Yes. It certainly is within the trademark scheme that the use of a domain use of a
domain name as an IP address of a server can be the legal use of the trademark as
long as the mark is used for the product in registration.
(
Is the requirement that maintaining use must occur in the territoiy of the trademark
automatically met as a consequence of the global nature of the Internet? If not,
please describe which further requirements must be met (cfr. 2.8).
Yes. No specific territory is given to the cyber world. Accordingly, once the requirement are met as a consequence of the global notice of the Internet.
Can an Internet domain name infringe another party's rights to a trademark? If so,
under which conditions? Please elaborate on the scope of protection of trademarks
against domain names and deal in your answer also with famous and well-known
trademarks (cfr. 2.10 and 11).
The dilution can be the good weapon to well-known or famous trademark owner to
prevent other domain name holders to sneak into his territory. lt is, however, to note
that the principle here is simple to state that the use of Internet domain name would
infringe other's trademark when the domain names serves to distinguish goods and
services identical or similar goods in trademark registration.
What measures can be taken by the domain holder in order to prevent that his use
of the domain name constitutes infringement of a trademark in territories where the
domain name holder has no commercial interests? Please elaborate on the contents of e.g. disclaimers (cfr. 2.12).
The protective disclaimer showing the domain name holders' clear intention to distinguish his business from others must be taken into consideration by the holder.
(j)
What is the answer to the question raised hereinbe fore under 2.13 as to the use of
a domain name on Internet for whatever product or service if that domain name is
identical or similar to a third party's mark which has been registered for means of
communication?
Again, the same rule will apply to such situation, which means that if the use of the
domain name has the function to indicate the source of the product or services in
question distinguishing the domain name holders from others, then it would be the
infringement.
Trade name law
(j)
Can the registration and use of an Internet domain name be sufficient to create,
and maintain, a trade name right to the second-level domain name included
therein? Is, in view of the global nature of the Internet, any use of a domain name
which includes the company name of the domain name holder sufficient? If not,
which additional requirements need to be fulfilled (cfr. 3.2 and 3)?
219
No. The registration of an Internet domain name or mere use would be sufficient to
create a trade name right. The trade name right can only be conferred when the
name does not violates another's trademark or trade name rights. As I mentioned
earlier the mere use of one name does not confer the right to use that name if it
violates another' established right.
(k)
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trade names also apply to domain names (cfr. 3.4)?
The same as the trademarks applies in trade name laws also to trade names.
(I)
Does the global nature of the Internet imply that the normal criteria of infringement
of a trade name apply to any use of an identical or similar domain name? Or must
there be a specific relation (of some sort) between your Group's counti'y or region
and the use of the domain name (or the offerings which are made on the server of
which the domain name is the address; cfr. 3.5)?
The same rule as to trademarks will apply to trade names.
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that
his use of the domain name infringes another party's trade name in territories where
the domain name holder has no (significant) commercial interests? Again: would
the use of a disclaimer be effective? If so, please elaborate on the contents of such
disclaimer (cfr. 3.6).
The Notice of disclaimer with the intention that the domain holder does not have no
commercial interests in territories in order to prevent the possible dispute should be
addressed.
Unfair competition
Can the registration and use of a domain name which is identical or similar to another party's trademark and/or trade name be successfully attacked on the basis of
general rules of unfair competition or tort? 1f so, under which conditions? If an element of bad faith is required, please elaborate on the nature thereof and provide
examples. Please discuss the legal possibilities to deal with the practice generally
referred to as "domain name grabbing" (cfr. 4.1. and 2).
Unfair Competition Prevention Act (UCPA) provides the protection, among others,
for the unregistered but well-known trademarks symbols signs in Korea. No specific
domain name issue has ever been tried based on the UCDA. The domain name
jegistration can be a convincing evidence to prove that the alleged infringer is using
another' mark.
Sanctions
Which sanctions can a court order against the holder of a domain name which infringes the trademark or trade name rights of another party or which is of heiwjse
unlawful vis-a-vis said party? Please indicate whether the court has te power to di-
220
rectly order the transfer of such domain name from the in fringing party to the
trademark/trade name owner (cfr. 5.1 and 2).
In general, the court will prove injunctive relief, and monetary damages. Also, the
court does not have a power to issue in order to transfer of a infringing domain
name from the infringing party to the party whose rights are infringed.
International private law
Which rules of the international private law of your Group's counti',' or region apply
in order to determine the applicable law in a dispute regarding the infringement of a
trademark or tradename by an Internet domain name (cfr. 6.1 and 2)?
Territoriality rule will apply when there is no specific provision as to the conflict of
law.
Which international private law rules apply in order to determine which court is
competent to deal with the above- mentioned dispute (cfr. 6.3)?
The court of the place where the right in dispute has been registered.
221
South Africa
Afrique du Sud
Südafrika
Report Q 143
by the South African Group
Internet domain names, trade marks and trade names
A.
Introduction
By way of background it is important to note that the South African population comprises
first and third world elements. lt is felt that the Internet could be used to the benefit of both
groups. On the one hand, South Africa's first world community is very aware of and involved in the use of the Internet. For instance, South Africa is a country ranked fourteenth
in the world for the number of registered domain names. On the other hand, Internet could
be used as a very effective tool in bringing information, telecommunication facilities and
education to the lesser advanced communities. The reason for this is that a reasonably
short transmission time using existing infrastructure is required to transmit long messages
which would otherwise take several minutes through, for instance, the use of a normal
telephone. Numerous South African companies who have expanded their business activi-
ties to other African states are seriously considering using the Internet as their main
means of communication with affiliated companies throughout Africa. If normal voice telecommunication cannot be established, the Internet e-mail facility may be used in terms of
which the message will be transmitted and stored on file servers until such time as the
telecommunication facility is available again.
South Africa is therefore in the unique position of utilising the Internet for electronic commerce and distribution of information (as any other first world country might do) but, South
Africa also has an opportunity of utilising Internet in making information available to remote, formerly disadvantaged, communities. The principle of making information available
to disadvantaged communities is one of the goals of the post-apartheid government, as
dealt with in detail in the Telecommunication Green and White Papers and the Telecommunication Act of 1996.
Domain names are registered in South Africa through a Section 21 company (a registered
company operating not for gain) called Uniforum SA. A co.za administrative page1 (the
most commonly used commercial domain space) has been established under
http://www.co.za. From this page a link has been established to coza.reg.txt where an
application form to register a sub domain within the co.za name space of the Internet is
located. To register a domain name this form2 needs to be completed and transmitted to
http://www.posix.CO.Za/COZa
2
http://co.za/coza.reg.txt
222
the co.za file server, it is electronically processed and the domain name registration allowed or refused.
Apart from the co.za domain space, the following domain registration options are also
available:
Purpose
Domain
tm.za
ac.za
gov.za
org.za
mil.za
South African trademarks domain
tertiary education domain
government domain
non-profit organisations
military domain
Facilities for the actual registration of domain names under the above are not as efficient
and well run as the co.za domain space.
As in most countries, the authority granted to take care of the registration of domain
names is "regulated' rather informally. lt is clear that there is no specific authority from
Internic or any other body authorising such domain name registration. This simply means
that the situation is regulated rather informally but no actual dispute as to the lack of
authority of Uniforum SA is envisaged for the immediate future. The informal structure
regulating the use of South African domain names can be illustrated by reference to the
stated main objective of Uniforum SA (the Section 21 company referred to before which
was formed on 28 July 1988) namely: "to promote group interests by providing information
relating to the use and understanding of the Unix computer system."
Finally, a further feature the South African Internet community is the dispute between the
Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) and Telkom SA Limited (Telkom). Telkom,
formerly a government department which has since been privatised to an extent and in
which the government holds 70% of the shares and the remaining 30% is held by a consortium consisting of a Malaysian and American consortium, maintains that Internet access is a "basic" service and therefore falls within the 5 year monopoly granted to Telkom.
The ISPA3 members, however, argue that they were responsible for establishing "first
world" Internet services and by allowing monopolistic rights, especially with regard to
bandwidth, it would not serve the South African Industry as a whole, their existing clients
or even the previously disadvantaged community. The constitution of the ISPA can be
found at their website4. The Telecommunications Act also makes provision for the establishment of the South African Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (SATRA), which
will play an increasingly important role in regulating Internet usage in general and in particular will play a role in adjudicating the dispute between ISPA and Telkom.
To summarise, the Internet is a useful tool which should be used to address the needs of
South Africa's first and third world communities. Current and future potential disputes
must, however, be regulated. lt is submitted that the bodies to which such duties must fall
3
'
http://www.ispa.org.za/about.hml
http://www.ispa.org.zalconstitution.html
223
already exist. The only alternative option is to have specific legislation regarding Internet,
domain names and on-line commerce promulgated which may not be ideal unless it is
based upon a universal standard. Until such time, however, current legislation of the
Trade Marks Act must be utilised to resolve Internet domain name disputes.
B)
Response to specific questions raised
Introduction
As stated before, domain names are registered electronically with no or very little
human intervention. Due to the nature of domain name users, this approach will in
all probability be followed in the future. In effect it means that domain name will be
registrable subject only to technical requirements i.e. that the same name or string
of characters has not already been registered. Currently, the only form of
"regulation" is based on the contract entered into by and between the domain name
registrant and Uniforum SA (see annexure B). The relationship is therefore purely
contractually and not binding upon third parties such as proprietors with a better
claim to the registration of the domain name. It is submitted that a contractual relationship between a registration authority and a registrant should regulate the position and included in such contractual relationship should be a voluntary, irrefutable
submission to effective alternative dispute resolution procedures such as suggested
by the Internet Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC). Whether the state should play a role in
such dispute resolution is uncertain, but perhaps bodies such as SATRA or even
the ISPA could be utilised in this regard.
No actual measures have been taken in South Africa to establish specific alternative dispute resolution disputes pertaining to domain names. No specific reported
action has been taken by any trade mark proprietor either, but as will be apparent
from the answers set out hereunder, there is nothing which stops an aggrieved
party seeking relief from the South African Courts.
Trade Mark Law
A domain name is a suitable candidate for trade mark protection if it meets the requirements set in Section 1 of the Trade Marks Act, 1993 ("the Act").
In this regard, a mark is defined as "any sign capable of being represented graphically including a device, a name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape, con figuration, pattern, ornamentation, colour or container for goods or any combination of the
aforementioned".
In turn a trade mark is defined as "other than a certification trade mark or a collective trade mark, means a mark used or proposed to be used by a person in relation
to goods or seivices for the purpose of distinguishing the goods or seivices in rela-
tion to which the marks is used or proposed to be used from the same kind of
goods or services connected in the course of trade with another person
A domain name of necessity exists of lower case alphabetical and numerical characters coupled with the use of some signs which are specifically allowed such as
the hyphen. As such it qualifies as a mark and as a trade mark. However, for a
224
trade mark to registrable in terms of the Act, Section 9 will apply. The wording of
Section 9 of the Act has been set out in Annexure A.
The whole emphasis pertaining to trade marks has shifted from the previous
"connection in the trade doctrine" to the distinguishing function of a trade mark. The
Act specifically states that marks capable of distinguishing in fact are registrable as
trade marks. Not all domain names will meet this qualification, for instance the registration of marketing.co.za or for that matter marketing, per se, will not qualify for
registration as a trade mark.
Where a specific second level domain name has already been used and such use
has in fact resulted in the mark/domain name serving a distinguishing function this
possibility will be enhanced.
In terms of South African Trade Mark Law only registered trade marks are protected
by the Trade Marks Act. However, common-law rights may accrue to a mark if it
has been used. The extent of such right will depend on the extent of use, the geographical area of use and other requirements (see paragraphs (n) and (o) hereunder).
Section 10 of the Trade Marks Act provides for marks which are unregistrable as
trade marks. The full text of Section 10 can be found in Annexure B.
As stated before, there is no legal requirement which must be met before a domain
name can be registered and apart from technical requirements no rules on absolute
invalidity of trade marks apply to domain names.. As long as the domain name consists of an unique string of characters, the registration will be allowed automatically
by the co.za file server. In some cases specific domain names or the use of specific
characters such as the ampersand, the @, etcetera will not be allowed due to technical reasons.
The prior use of a domain name may give grounds for opposing the subsequent
application for the registration of the same domain name as a trade mark. lt is to be
noted that the concept "a filing in bad faith" is not specifically recognised by the
South African Trade Mark Law, although similar provisions which may be utilised in
opposing the registration of a mark or in taking action for the removal thereof are
provided for in the Trade Marks Act. Section 21 allows interested persons to oppose the registration of a trade mark (including, inter a/ia, based on the provisions
of Section 10 referred to above). Furthermore, Section 24(1) and 24(3) grants the
Registrar power to rectify entries in the register. The wording of these pertinent
Sections has been set out in Annexure C.
In particular, regard must be had to Section 10(4) which states that a person must
have a bona fide intention to use a mark as a trade mark and if the domain name
registrant can prove that the trade mark was applied for merely so as to ride on the
reputation of an existing domain name, the registration of the mark can be objected
to. This will, however, only occur in cases of very well-known domain names and,
for instance, web addresses such as yahoo.com. The domain name owner can
also object in terms of Section 10(7) if it can be proved that the application for reg225
istration of the trade mark was made ma/a fide. As stated before, the use of the
domain name must be extensive and it should be reasonably well-known in relation
to the goods or services for which registration as a trade mark is sought or "similar"
goods or services.
e)
lt is submitted that the use of a domain name as an IP address of a server can
qualify as maintaining use of a trade mark. The wording of Section 2 of the Trade
Marks Act, dealing with use of a trade mark has been set out in Annexure D.
lt is submitted that use of a domain name as an IP address, especially where such
use is reinforced by what appears on the website once the IP address is entered,
could be argued to be use "in other relation to" goods. Take for example, the IP address deII.com, which is used by the Dell Corporation; when this particular domain
name is used/entered one will be routed to Dell Corporation's website from which
direct purchases can be made. Furthermore, such use is also "in relation to the
performance of services" i.e. retail and wholesale services (a recognised category
of services in class 42). Advertisements on this particular website featuring computers with the trade mark DELL clearly marked thereon could constitute use upon
goods.
As stated before, there has been no reported cases on the use of domain names
and whether it constitutes use. Therefore, one would have to look at similar types of
use, for instance, use in the advertising media, and apply the same or similar principles to the use of a domain name. The particular issue of advertisements appearing in magazines and whether it constitutes use of a trade mark came before
the South African Court in the course of infringement proceedings under Section
44(1 )(a) of the 1963 Act (the previous Trade Marks Act) in the matter of Sear/es Industrials (Pty) Limited y International Power Marketing (Pty) Limited (the "Jordache
case"). The respondent in that matter had used a mark in an advertisement with
reference to certain goods manufactured and sold by its clients abroad, for the purpose of testing marketing reaction in this country. No sale or offering for sale of the
goods under the mark had taken place in South Africa, nor were any such steps
imminent. Goldstone J imported into the definition of infringement in Section
44(1 )(a) the definition of a trade mark in Section 2 of the Act, which covers a mark
"used or proposed to be used in relation to goods or services
"On this basis he
said the following
I agree with the applicant's counsel that there may be an infringement under
Section 44 where there is unauthorised use of an offending mark which it is
proposed to use in relation to goods in respect of which the mark is registered.
If a trade mark includes a mark proposed to be used in relation to goods then
the reference in Section 2(3)(a) of the Act to the use of a mark 'in other rela-
tion to goods would include such proposed use of the mark in question. /
cannot find any justification for the requirement that the goods must be actually in existence and available for purchase in this country in order for an advertisement to constitute such use.
226
it is respectfully submitted that this approach is open to criticism on the basis that it
is confined to a narrow and casuistic consideration of Section 44(1 )(a) without sufficient regard to the provisions of the Act as a whole. On general principles the same
expression should bear the same meaning throughout a statute unless there is a
clear indication to the contrary. The wider implications of such an interpretation in
relation to matter such as expungement for non-user, honest concurrent use, etcetera, could well have led to the conclusion that such an interpretation was contrary
to the intention of the Act as a whole. Moreover, the reasoning which led directly to
the interpretation adopted was, with great respect by no manes conclusive. What
Section 44(1)(a) required was use as a trade mark in relation to goods or services.
The fact that a trade mark, as defined, includes a mark which is merely proposed to
be used in relation to goods or services does not necessarily remove the express
requirement of the subsection that, in order to constitute infringement, there should
actually be use in relation to goods or services. On the contrary, it is entirely consistent with the conclusion that the use required must in fact be use in relation to
goods or services and not conduct which merely evidences an intention to use the
mark in relation to goods or services at some future date.
This approach would not lead to any inadequacy in the protection afforded by Sec-
tion 34(1)(a) of the 1993 Trade Marks Act (equivalent of Section 44(1)(a) of the
1963 Trade Marks Act), for such use could still be restrained on the alternative basis adopted in the Jordache case: namely, "that it gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of future infringement." In fact, the full court upheld the decision in the Jordache case on appeal on that basis only, finding it unnecessary to decide whether
or not actual use was proved.
lt is submitted that the requirement of maintaining use will be met as a consequence of the global nature of the Internet. Especially, if it can be proved that the
particular website was accessed from a South African origin, goods purchased online or services engaged online (which appears to be technically feasible).
lt is submitted that use as an Internet domain name can infringe another party's
rights to a trade mark. Sections 34 and 35, which deal with infringement of a trade
mark, can be found in Annexure E.
From the wording of the Act it is clear that the Section 34 only applies in respect of
registered trade marks. In respect of "unregistered trade marks" Section 35 applies
if the mark is "well known" but please see the comments in respect of trade names
and trading styles pertaining to marks which are not well known, hereunder.
Section 34(1 )(c) also makes provision for protection against the dilution of a registered trade mark i.e. if it can be proved that the use of a trade mark as a domain
name would be likely to take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to the distinctive
character or the repute of a registered trade mark, notwithstanding the absence of
confusion or deception, it will be trade mark infringement. For instance, take the
following scenario: Upon reading of the Mars landing, a search under the domain
name nasa.com (not knowing that NASA's website is under nasa.gov) was conducted. Great was the surprise when a pornography website was displayed upon
entering the command. In such an eventuality, and subject to the condition that
227
NASA had been registered as a trade mark in South Africa, it would clearly have
amounted to dilution.
The South African courts have already protected the rights of a proprietor of a well-
known trade mark in circumstances where no registration or goodwill exists in
South Africa. This is a departure from our common-law and Section 35 has been
introduced principally in order to ensure South Africa complies with its obligation
under Section 6bis of the Paris Convention.
The meaning of the phrase "well-known in the Republic" was the pertinent issue in
the McDonald's case. The essential dispute between the parties was what level of
awareness in the public mind is required for a mark to qualify as "well known" in
terms of Section 35. In determining the issue Grosskopf JA looked at the background of the section, namely Article 6bis of the Paris Convention. The judge then
considered the various authorities in the United Kingdom and South Africa dealing
with passing off in the absence of a goodwill in the territory and stated:
However, whether the above cases were right or wrong, they demonstrate
that the Courts in this country and the United Kingdom have in fact not protected the owners of foreign trade marks who did not have a goodwill within
the country. To that extent the common law of passing off has not been sufficient to constitute compliance with art 6bis of the Paris Convention.
It seems clear that Section 35 of the new act and the corresponding provisions in the United Kingdom were intended to remedy this lack. Thus Section
35(1) pertinently extends protection to the owner of a foreign mark whether
or not such person carries on business, or has any goodwill, in the Republic'.
And the type of protection which is granted by sub-section (3) is typical of
that which is available under the common law of passing off: a prohibition on
the use of the mark in relation to goods or seivices in respect of which the
mark is well known and where the use is likely to cause deception or confusion.
Having established that Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act is a departure from the
common law, it is must further be established that the mark must be well known to
persons interested in the goods or services to which the mark relates (and not to
the broader community). Furthermore, a substantial number of persons should
know the mark. What that number will be, depends on the circumstances of each
case; in a limited and specialised market, for instance, a reputation extending to
relatively few people could be sufficient. The approach of the court to the relevant
sector of the market is illustrative as the court accepted that there were two categories of persons who would be interested in the goods and services provided by
McDonald's, namely potential customers and potential franchisees. Different tests
will apply in respect of marks claimed to be well known in different sectors of the industry.
Consequently, it is submitted that the provisions pertaining to infringement contained in the South African Trade Marks Act will apply in respect of the unauthorised use of domain names.
228
As stated before, use of a domain name can in appropriate circumstances amount
to infringement of registered trade mark rights in South Africa. Working under the
presumption that the same would apply in other territories, and in view of the international nature of the Internet, it would mean that before a domain name can be
used at all, trade mark infringement searches should be conducted in almost every
country in the world. Clearly this is not a practical solution, especially in areas
where the trade mark owners I domain name registrant has no particular commercial interest. The solution to the problem may lie in technical as opposed to the
clearly legal measures. I have, for instance, come across a Japanese website registered under co.jp where access beyond the homepage was not granted and a
message reading "service only available to Japanese persons" appeared on the
screen.
In this regard its is important to note that a suitable disclaimer in terms of South African laws will suffice i.e. a message that reads "this service is only available to the
citizen of the following countries" should be, it is submitted, efficient to avoid infringement of trade marks in South Africa. If one only gains access to the homepage of any particular website with access denied to additional pages offering goods
and services one would be hard pressed to argue that actual use of a trade mark
occurred. Our courts have held that clauses in agreements which are clear and unambiguous and in terms of which goods and services are offered subject to these
conditions will avoid liability in a contractual sense and the same principle should
find application.
lt is submitted that use of a trade mark as a domain name does not necessarily
equate to use of such trade mark I domain name in relation to telecommunication
goods or services. As stated before, Section 2 provides that use of a mark in relation to services shall be construed as "references to the use thereof in or any relation to the performance of such services". Consequently, if the domain name is
linked to a website offering telecommunications services, such use would be in respect of telecommunication services. However, if a domain name is used merely as
an address where non-telecommunication services or services not similar to telecommunication services are offered, such use will not be use of a trade mark in relation to the performance of telecommunication services.
Trade Name Law
South African law does not distinguish between trade marks and trade names and
thus no specific law deals solely with trade names or trade styles. Statutory provisions relating to trade names are found in the Trade Marks Act No. 194 of 1993
(the Act specifically includes the offering for sale or the sale of goods in the retail or
wholesale trade in its definition of services), the Companies Act, No. 61 of 1973,
the Close Corporation Act, No. 69 of 1984 and the Business Names Act, No. 227 of
1960. This is supplemented by the common law, (particularly the action for passingoff) and judicial decisions.
Both the Companies Act (Section 45) and the Close Corporation Acts (Section 20)
provide for objection to be lodged against the registration of a Company or Close
229
Corporation name respectively where such name is "undesirable" or if it appears
that the name is "calculated to cause damage" or if the name "gives a misleading
indication of the nature of the company's activities so as to be calculated to deceive
the public".
A directive (Government Notice 978 of 1995) was issued by the Registrar of Companies as a guideline as to what name will be undesirable as a company or close
corporation name. Although the directive only serves as a guideline, its introduction
reads as follows:"Any name may be selected, provided such name does not encroach on the
rights of any person or existing concern ......
Specific guidelines are then also laid down of what names, in particular, will be undesirable. Encroachment on the rights of others simply mean a name identical or
very similar to a name already registered. Our courts have then also held that
where there is a likelihood of confusion, it would be undesirable to register a particular name. (See Allied Technologies Limited y Altecno (SA) (Pty) Limited and the
Registrar of Companies - unreported decision TPD 8 May 1989 under Case No.
11745/88 13).
There is judicial support for the view that the test to be applied in determining
whether there is a likelihood of damage correspond to that applied in passing-off
actions under the common law (see Link Estates (Pty) Limited 1979 (2) SA 276
(E)). In terms hereof, it must be determined whether there is a reasonable likelihood
that the public may be confused or deceived into believing that the respondent's
business is, having regard to the context of the sphere of the business operations
and the nature of the businesses, connected with that of the objector which will result in actual or probable damage to the objector. Actual damages do not need to
be shown and inconvenience suffered by the objector will be taken into account.
When seen against the background that a corporate entity's name (whether registered as a Company or Close Corporation name) in most instances also serve as its
trade name (which is the name most likely to be registered as a domain name), the
relevance of the Companies and Close Corporation Acts become apparent. These
Acts will only apply where registration of the domain name as the name of a corporate entity are sought. Trade names, due to the rather unique inclusion of wholesale
and retail services are often also registered as trade marks in terms of the Trade
Marks Act. Should that be the case, the directive specifically declares the name
sought to be registered undesirable in regard to a business which relates to a class
in which the trade mark is registered.
The position regarding unregistered trade names are dealt with in terms of the
Business Names Act. Section 5 in this regard provides that any aggrieved person
may apply to the Registrar of Companies to order any person who carries on any
business under any name, title or description which is in the opinion of the Registrar
calculated to deceive or mislead the public or to cause annoyance or offence to any
person or class of persons or is suggestive of blasphemy or indecency, to cease to
carry on the business under that name, title or description. The test to be applied is
230
whether the unregistered name, in the particular context of the objector's sphere of
business operations and the nature of its business and those of the respondent, is
likely to deceive or mislead the public. (Pick 'n Pay Stores y Registrar of Companies
and Another 1971 (1) SA 147). Although this relates primarily to trading styles,
nothing prevents the application of the Act to domain names.
In terms of our common law, rights to a name may also be created and maintained
through the use of that name, whether on the Internet or otherwise. The governing
principle is that the rights extend only as far as the goodwill associated with that
use extend and use of another's name or of a name confusingly similar thereto are
protected against by what is known as the delict ("tort") of passing-off. This was described in the case of Capital Estate & General Agencies (Pty) Ltd y Holiday Inns
Inc. 1977 2 SA 916 A as follows:
"The wrong known as passing off consists in a representation by one person
that his business (or merchandise, as the case may be) is that of another, or
that it is associated with that another, and, in order to determine whether a
representation amount to a passing off, one inquires whether there is a reasonable likelihood that members of the public may be confused into believing
that the business of the one is, or is connected with, that of another".
Any use of the trade name on the Internet by the domain name holder will thus suffice in order for that name to secure common law rights. This statement must, however, be further clarified. Reputation on its own is not suffice to support an action in
terms of the common law. In order for the plaintiff to do so, the reputation must be
connected with goodwill (business activity) within the Republic. (Tie Rack pic y The
Rack Stores (Pty) Ltd. 1989 4 SA 427 (T)).
k)
As any unique string of characters will qualify for registration as a domain name, the
rules on absolute invalidity of trade marks and trade names do not apply to domain
names.
I)
Infringement of a trade name, if registered as a trade mark, would be dealt with in
terms of the Trade Marks Act, whilst the Business Names Act would apply where an
unregistered trade mark infringes on either a registered or unregistered corporate
name. In addition, supplemental to the statutory provisions is the common law and
particularly the common law relating to passing-off.
Well known trade marks in terms of the Paris Convention are protected in that the
proprietor of such trade marks are entitled to restrain the use in the Republic of a
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 of services in respect of which the trade
mark is well known and where the use is likely to cause deception or confusion.
In terms of the Business Names Act, an aggrieved person may apply in writing to
the Registrar of Companies, requesting the latter to order the change of a
(unregistered) business name (trading style), title or description which is:
231
calculated to deceive or mislead the public; or
calculated to cause annoyance to any person or class of persons; or
(C)
suggestive of blasphemy or indecency.
The normal criteria of infringement apply and only the protection of well-known
trade marks in terms of the Paris Convention are not strictly dealt with in accordance with the territorial principle, in that such marks need not be registered in the
Republic in order to enjoy protection.
The right infringed by unlawful competitions (of which passing-off forms part), is the
right to attract custom which can involve the right to an existing goodwill. The prop-
erty protected is thus the goodwill itself and not simply the name with which the
goodwill is associated. (John Craig (Pty) Ltd y Dupa Clothing Industries (Pty) Ltd
1977 3 SA 144 T). Goodwill however, has no independent existence apart from the
business to which it is attached and is geographically limited to that territory in
which its is known, which may extend beyond the area in which trade is carried on.
lt is clear that use of a domain name constitutes use for trade mark purposes and
that the use of a disclaimer may not be ideally suited to the situation. The solutions
suggested under (h) supra namely that access to the Internet site excluding the initial webpage, be denied to territories where domain name infringement may take
place, is accordingly recommended.
Due to the global accessibility of the Internet, excluding access from those countries in which conflicting rights exist will ensure the integrity of both the rights of the
various parties.
Unfair competition
South African law recognises the delict of unlawful competition. Accordingly, use of
a domain name in South Africa which is identical or similar to an unregistered trade
mark or trade name can be successfully attacked under certain circumstances:
Where that use constitutes a passing off, namely, if it consists in a representation by one person (the domain owner) that his business or merchandise is that of another, or that it is associated with that of another and the
public may be confused into believing that the business of the domain owner
is, or is connected with, that of another.
Passing off requires that an injured party has a reputation and goodwill in the
domain name that is copied. lt does not, however, require that the offending
party acts in bad faith.
Where the domain owner has acquired another's unregistered trade mark or
trade name in bad faith, but where no passing off occurs; in other words, the
owner of the trade mark or trade name has no reputation or goodwill in the
name.
232
This type of unlawful competition requires that an element of bad faith be
present.
An analogy of this type of scenario occurred in a case where one party was
about to market a new wine under a new label which had been designed in
secret. As a result of a breach of confidence by the designer, another party
came into possession of the label and commenced marketing his own wine
under that label. This conduct was judged by our courts to constitute unlawful competition.
Another example is where an agent uses a principal's unregistered trade
mark or trade name without the authority of the principal.
Where a domain holder misrepresents that the goods or services of the unregistered trade mark I trade name holder are his own.
An analogy of this form of unlawful competition can occur where, for example, a foreign company adopts the name of a South African Bank and encourages the perception that it is a branch or associate of the South African
bank.
Again, bad faith would have to be present to persuade a court that the act
complained of amounts to an actionable delict.
There may be other circumstances that amount to unlawful competition but
they would invariably require bad faith.
Sanctions
o)
In a case of trade mark infringement or unlawful competition, a court can order the
offending party to cease using the domain name. If the domain registration authority
is cited as a party to the proceedings, the court is entitled to order that authority to
delete the offending domain name. This, of course, can only be of practical use if
that authority is within the jurisdiction of the Court where the action is brought. Our
law also makes provision for an award for damages. In trade mark infringement
cases, if damages cannot be proved, the court can award an amount equal to
"reasonable royalties" which would have been payable by a licensee for use of the
mark concerned.
Generally, our courts will not have the power to directly order the transfer of the
domain name from the infringer to the injured party unless it is a clear case of
fraudulent acquisition of the injured party's trade mark / trade name. Naturally, the
court can only authorise such a transfer if the domain registration authority is within
its jurisdiction.
The essential problem with any sanction is its enforcement. If, for example, a foreign entity's use of a domain name amounts to infringement / unlawful competition
in South Africa and it is interdicted from using that name in South Africa, the diffi-
233
culty that the foreign company faces is complying with the court order. lt cannot be
expected to delete the domain name from the Internet entirely since it may have
rights in the name in other countries. This aspect of enforcement requires careful
consideration.
Private International Law
South African law will apply if the infringement I unlawful competition took place in
South Africa.
If a South African court does not have jurisdiction over the infringer, the injured
party will have to bring his action in a court having jurisdiction (for example, the
UK), in which case that country's procedural law will apply but the merits of the
matter will be determined in accordance with South African Law.
Addenda
Annexure A:
Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act
Annexure B:
Section 10 of the Trade Marks Act
Annexure C:
Sections 24(1) and 24(3) of the Trade Marks Act
Annexure D:
Section 2 of the Trade Marks Act
Annexure E:
Sections 34 and 35 of the Trade Marks Act
Annexure "A"
Regisfrable trade marks
In order to be registrable, a trade mark shall be capable of distinguishing the goods
or services of a person in respect of which it is registered or proposed to be registered from the goods or services of another person either generally or, where the
trade mark is registered or proposed to be registered subject to limitations, in relation to use within those limitations.
A mark shall be considered to be capable of distinguishing within the meaning of
subsection (1) if, at the date of application for registration, it is inherently capable of
so distinguishing or it is capable of distinguishing by reasons of prior use thereof'.
234
Annexure "B"
"Unregistrable trade marks
The following mark shall not be registered as trade marks or, if registered, shall, subject to
the provisions of sections 3 and 70, be liable to be removed from the register:
1)
A mark which does not constitute a trade mark;
2)
a mark which is not capable of distinguishing within the meaning of Section 9; or
consists exclusive of a sign or an indication which may seive, in trade, to
designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical
origin or other characteristics of the goods or seivices, or the mode or time of
production of the goods or of rendering of the sen/ices; or
consists exclusively of a sign or an indication which has become customaiy
in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the
trade;
3)
a mark in relation to which the applicant for registration has no bona tide claim to
proprietorship;
4)
a mark in relation to which the applicant for registration has no bona fide intention
of using it as a trade mark, either himself or through any person permitted or to be
permitted by him to use the mark as contemplated by Section 38;
5)
a mark which consists exclusively of the shape, configuration or colour of goods
where such shape, configuration or colour is necessaiy to obtain a specific technical result, or results from the nature of the goods themselves;
6)
subject to the provisions of Section 36(2), a mark which, on the date of appilcation
for registration thereof, or, where appropriate, of the priority claimed in respect of
the application for registration thereof, constitutes, or the essential part of which
constitutes, a reproduction, imitation or translation of a trade mark which is entitled
to protection under the Paris Convention as a well-known trade mark within the
meaning of the Section 35(1) of this Act and which is used for goods or services
identical or similar to the goods or services in question;
7)
a mark the application for registration of which was made mala fide;
8)
a mark which contains the coat of arms, seal or national flag of the Republic or,
save with the authorization of the competent authority of the convention countiy
concerned, of any convention count!)';
9)
a mark which contains any word, letter or device indicating State patronage;
235
a mark which contains any mark specified in the regulation as being for the purposes of this section a prohibited mark;
a mark which consists of a container of goods or the shape, configuration, colour or
pattern of goods, where the registration of such mark is or has become likely to limit
the development of any art or industry;
a mark which is inherently deceptive or the use of which would be likely to deceive
or cause confusion, be contrary to law, be contra bonos mores, or be likely to give
offence to any class of persons;
a mark which, as a result of the manner in which it has been used, would be likely
to cause deception or confusion;
subject to the provisions of Section 14, a mark which is identical to a registered
trade mark belonging to a different proprietor or so similar thereto that the use
thereof in relation to goods or services in respect of which it is sought to be registered and which are the same as or similar to the goods or services in respect of
which such trade mark is registered, would be likely to deceive or cause confusion,
unless the proprietor of such trade mark consents to the registration of such mark;
subject to the provisions of Section 14 and paragraph (16), a mark which is identical to a mark which is the subject of an earlier application by a different person, or
so similar thereto that the use thereof in relation to goods or services in respect of
which it is sought to be registered and which are the same as or similar to the
goods or services in respect of which the mark in respect of which the earlier application is made, would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, unless the person
making the earlier application consents to the registration of such mark;
a mark which is the subject of an earlier application as contemplated in paragraph
(15), if the registration of that mark is contrary to existing rights of the person making the later application for registration as contemplated in that paragraph.
a mark which is identical or similar to a trade mark which is already registered and
which is weil-known in the Republic, if the use of the mark sought to be registered
would be likely to take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive
character or the repute of the registered trade mark, notwithstanding the absence of
deception or confusion.
Provided that a mark shail not be refused registration by virtue of the provisions of paragraph (2) or, if registered, shall not be liable to be removed from the register by virtue of
the said provisions if a the date of the application for registration or at the date of an application for removal from the register, as the case may be, it has in fact become capable of
distinguishing within the meaning of Section 9 as a result of use made of the mark".
236
Annexure "C"
"General power to rectify entries in register
24(1) In the event of non-insertion in or omission from the register of any entiy wrongly
made in or wrongly remaining on the register, or of any error or defect in any entiy
in the register, any interested person may apply to the court or, at the option of the
applicant and subject to the provisions of Section 59, in the prescribed manner, to
the Registrar, for the desired relief, and thereupon the court or the Registrar, as the
case may be, may make such order for making, removing or vasying the ent,y as it
or he may deem fit.
24(3) In the event of the Registrar being satisfied that any entiy relating to the registration, assignment or transmission of a trade mark has been secured mala fide or by
misrepresentation or that any such entry was wrongly made or wrongly remains on
the register, he shall also have locus standi to apply to the court under the provision
of this section
Annexure "D"
"(2)
References in this Act to use of a mark shall be construed as references to the use of a visual representation of the mark;
in the case of a container, the use of such container; and
in the case of a mark which is capable of being audibly reproduced, the use
of an audible reproduction of the mark.
(a)
References in this Act to the use of a mark in relation to goods shall be construed as references to the use thereof upon, or in physical or other relation
to, such goods.
(b)
References in this Act to the use of a mark in relation to seivices shall be
construed as references to the use thereof in any relation to the performance
of such services.
The use or proposed use of a registered trade mark shall include the use or proposed use of the trade mark in accordance with the provisions of Section 38,
whether for the purposes of this Act or at common law".
237
Annexure "E"
Section 34:
Infringement of registered trade mark
(1)
The rights acquired by registration of a trade mark shall be in fringed by -
the unauthorised use in the course of trade in relation to goods or services in
respect of which the trade mark is registered, of an identical mark or of a
mark so nearly resembling as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion;
the unauthorised use of a mark which is identical or similar to the trade mark
registered, in the course of trade in relation to goods or seniices which are
so similar to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered, that in such use there exists the like/Thood of deception or confusion.
the unauthorised use in the course of trade in relation to any goods or services of a mark which is identical or similar to a trade mark registered, if such
trade mark is well-known in the Republic and the use of the said mark would
be likely to take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive
character or the repute of the registered trade mark, notwithstanding the absence of confusion or deception: Provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to a trade mark referred to in Section 70(2).
(2)
A registered trade mark is not infringed by -
any bona fide use by a person of his own name, the name of his place of
business, the name of any of his predecessors in business, or the name of
any such predecessor's place of business.
the use by an person of any bona fide description or indication of the kind,
quality, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or other characteristics
of his goods or sen/ices, or the mode or time of production of the goods or
the rendering of the services;
the bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to goods or services where it
is reasonable to indicate the intended purpose of such goods, including
spare parts and accessories, and such services;
the importation into or the distribution, sale or offering for sale in the Republic
of goods to which the trade mark has been applied by or with the consent of
the proprietor thereof;
the bona fide use by any person of any utilitarian features embodied in a
container, shape, configuration, colour or pattern which is registered as a
trade mark;
238
(
the use of a trade mark in any manner in respect of or in relation to goods to
be sold or otherwise traded in, or services to be performed, in any place, or
in relation to goods to be exported to any market, or in any other manner in
relation to which, having regard to any conditions or limitations entered in the
register, the registration does not extend;
(g)
the use of any identical or confusingly or deceptively similar trade mark
which is registered:
Provided that paragraph (a) shall not apply to the name of any juristic person
whose name was registered after the date of registration of the trade mark:
Provided further that the use contemplated in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is consistent
with fair practice.
Section 35:
"Protection of well-known marks under Paris Convention
(1)
References in this Act to a trade mark which is entitled to protection under the Paris
Convention as well-known trade mark, are to a mark which is well known in the Republic as being the mark of -
a person who is a national of a convention countiy; or
a person who is domiciled in, or has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in, a convention countiy,
whether or not such person carries on business, or has any goodwill, in the Republic.
(2)
A reference in this Act to the proprietor of such a mark shall be construed accordingly.
(3)
The proprietor of a trade mark which is entitled to protection under the Paris Convention as a well-known trade mark is entitled to restrain the use in the Republic 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".
239
Spain
Espagne
Spanien
Report Q 143
in the name of the Spanish Group
by Luis Hernando de LARRAMENDI, Jesis M de Alfonso OLIVE,
Anna AUTO CASASSAS, Luis BAZ BAZ, José M FERNANDEZ AGUADO,
M Teresa GRATI CAMINAL, José M GLESIAS MONRAVA, Patricia KOCH MORENO,
Ignacio de MEDRANO CABALLERO, José Antonio PRIMO DE RIVERA Y URQUIJO,
Jordi ROMANI LLUCH, José lgnacio SAN MARTIN SANTAMARIA,
Mario A. SOL MUNTAIOLA and Manuel Julio VIN IEGRA
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
1.
Preliminary considerations
1.1.
Forthe purposes of this report, "subdomain names" have been considered 'domain
names".
1 .2.
Conflicts between domain names can arise from the following circumstances:
No identical domain name may exist under each top-level domain name.
Identical domain names may exist in each different top-level domain (.com,
es, etc.).
-
Domain names are accessible from anywhere in the world and thus transcend issues of territoriality.
There is no principle of speciality allowing ownership of the same domain
name by different owners for different fields of activity.
When new domain names are registered, similarity with previously existing
domain names (in the same top-level domain) is not taken into account, all
that is taken into account is whether names are identical.
1.3.
Inasmuch as domain names identify parties making information, goods, or services
available on the web, they are analogous to tradenames, though of a particular nature.
240
The fact that very different information, goods, or services may be offered under the
same domain name heightens the similarity with tradenames.
1.4.
It should be mandatory for the identity of the natural and/or legal person using the
domain name and that person's legal domicile for questions relating to the competent courts, together with the technical information needed to block access, to appear on every web page as evidence of good faith.
1 .5.
For preventing cancellation of a trademark or tradename on grounds of non-use,
the presence of a domain name on the web:
Cannot, in itself, be considered sufficient use of a possible trademark corresponding to that domain name for the purpose of neutralizing a potential
cancellation action.
Additionally, effective business operations must be carried out.
For purposes of use, providing the preceding condition is fulfilled, it should
suffice for a trademark to be the same as a subdomain name, without any
need to include the top-level domain name.
1.6.
For infringement of third-party trademarks, the presence on the web of a domain
name:
Cannot, in itself, be considered an infringement of a registered trademark
identical or similar to that domain name.
Additionally, effective business operations must be carried out, and the thirdparty trademark owner must give notice of his rights.
Business operations should be considered to be carried out if any business
offering is made under the domain name without including a notice that orders from the territory in which the trademark is registered will not be accepted.
2.
Answers to the questionnaire
7.2-A Section one
The Spanish Group of the AIPPI considers necessary a system restricting access to domain names, especially to generic top-level domain names, particularly .com names,
similar to the system in Spain administered by ES-NIC.
Whether for technical reasons, that is, space limitations for assigning lP addresses, or for
other reasons, the system of assigning subdomain names under the TLDN .es is certainly
restrictive, to the point where it has practically created a "para-Register" of industrial property rights.
The system for assigning domain names established by ES-NIC in Spain has a number of
features:
241
1
To be eligible to apply for a domain name, it is necessary to be an organization
that is legally established in Spain, defined as any quasi-public or private legal person duly established in the framework of the pertinent regulatory legislation.
Accordingly, .es DNS subdomain names cannot be registered by natural persons or
by branches or delegations of organizations.
An organization may only register a single .es subdomain name.
To secure assignment of a domain name (the ES-NIC rules refer to "registration",
strengthening the notion that a "para-Register" has been created), the following requirements must be met:
The domain name may not already be registered (on the basis of the criterion of
whether names are identical, not whether they are similar).
Syntax rules must be complied with, including minimum and maximum length of
domain names.
The name must not contravene an absolute prohibition:
lt may not be the same as another TLDN.
lt may not consist solely of place names.
lt may not consist solely of generic terms.
lt may not be identical to the names of Internet protocols, applications, and terminology.
lt may not contain terms or expressions that are contrary to law or to public policy.
It may not be publicly and notoriously associated with another organization, acronym, or trademark other than those of the applicant of the domain name.
It may not consist solely of given names and surnames unless it is identical to a
trademark or tradename registered at the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office in
the name of the organization applying for the domain name.
It may not consist solely of a sequence of digits, unless that sequence is a trademark.
The name must conform to general domain naming rules:
A domain name must consist of the full name of the organization as it appears on
the deed of incorporation.
Alternatively, it may consist of an acronym of the organization's full name directly
and readily associated with the organization's official name; preferably, that acronym will be the one customarily used and legally registered with the Spanish Patent
and Trademark Office.
No organization may register an acronym that cannot reasonably or intuitively be
associated with the organization's official name.
242
The sole case in which a domain name may not be the same as the organization's
official name is when the organization prefers to use a tradename or trademark legally registered with the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office that it customarily
uses for identification (instead of the name of the organization itself, since only a
single domain name may be registered); however, in view of their local nature, titles
of establishment are not admissible.
Exceptions to the absolute prohibitions and naming rules exist, particularly for
cases of generic or toponymic terms that are company names or trademarks.
Apart from the requirements and prohibitions discussed above, .es subdomain
names are assigned on a first come, first served basis, "prior in tempore, potior in
jure'.
Thus, there are strict rules for assigning domain names, which will doubtless
greatly reduce the number of infringements, except in cases where two organizations are both able to demonstrate rights in the same name, in which case the
following conflict could arise.
Specifically, this type of conflict will occur in three cases.
When a domain name in which rights are held (either as a company name or as a
trademark) is registered but a third party may hold superior rights, particularly in the
case of notorious trademarks.
When confusingly similar names are registered (the ES-NIC registration rules contain no clear criteria for addressing such questions, though certainly incorporation
of an organization or company or registration of a trademark involves an initial,
though sometimes flawed, screening process).
When there are two marks in different international classes in which the respective
owners have the same rights; assignment of a domain name to one of those owners will block assignment to the second, irrespective of the rights that owner may
hold.
Therefore, the only solution would be to apply the principle of speciality from trade-
mark law to such cases, though this would mean that the Register of domain
names would virtually become another Trademark Office, though lacking the procedures of opposition, reply, and appeal.
The tendency to increase the number of generic top-level domains emerging from
ad hoc committee meetings is a step in this direction, in that it heightens the specialization of parties present on the web. On the other hand, it also opens the door
to infringers, unless, as already mentioned, assignment of subdomain names is
highly restricted.
Since domain names are in the nature of tradenames, at least in Spain, it would be
helpful if worldwide each person (natural or legal) could only own a single subdomain name in each top-level domain (generic or country).
243
Possible simultaneous use of generic domain names and national domain names
(e.g., comes, store.es) would provide greater scope for the coexistence of identical
domain names corresponding to identical trademark registrations for differing goods
or services in the names of different owners. All the more so if the number of generic top-level domains is increased in future. In our opinion this could provide
some relief for the strains between the worldwide nature of domain names and the
territorial nature of industrial property rights by permitting a certain "localization" of
domain names.
In any event, conflicts are to be settled in the framework of bilateral settlements or
in the competent courts.
7.2-A Section two
As long as domain names are granted by a de facto authority, the solutions should entail:
-
The existence of an on-line database of domain names already assigned by each
authority, for consultation.
A period in which third parties who feel they have superior rights may lodge observations and decision by a committee of experts under the authority within a very
short term, followed by immediate implementation, although the parties in the conflict may nonetheless be entitled to take the matter to the courts.
7.2-B
A domain name may be a trademark and secure registration as such, either:
-
if it is filed only as a subdomain name, or
-
if it is filed as a complete domain name, including the generic and/or country
top-level domain name, even though protection will not extend to those components.
The domain name does not have to have been previously used in order for it to be registered as a trademark, but if it is not registered as a trademark the owner will not hold any
industrial property rights in the sign, because in Spain rights are acquired solely through
registration.
For a domain name to be registered as a trademark, it will have to pass the examination of
the absolute bars to registration and the third-party opposition procedure.
Since the ES-NIC authority only accepts domain names that are:
the applicant's tradename;
an acronym of that tradename; or
an already registered trademark,
244
in practice there are not many trademark filings of domain names that hitherto have been
registered only under the country top-level domain name.
7.2-C
Without prejudice to the comments already made in section 7.2-A, item 3, above regarding
the absolute prohibitions on the assignment of domain names under the TLDN '.es", when
a domain name is filed as a trademark, it may not contravene the absolute bars to registration, though some of the customary bars are not practically relevant, in that they are
unrelated to the nature of domain names, e.g., the prohibition against registration of
shapes required by reason of the technical characteristics of the goods.
The examination of the absolute prohibitions is always performed on the basis of the
meaning in the Spanish language, unless the word, even though it is in a foreign language, would be readily understandable to Spanish consumers as a whole. As a result,
prohibitions that might be considered applicable if meaning in another language were considered might not be taken into account in the case of a given sign to be used as a domain name and hence will be worldwide in scope.
7.2-D
A user of an unregistered trademark in Spain cannot challenge subsequent recordai of the
sign being used as a trademark, except in cases of bad faith and well-known marks.
Use of a prior mark in the form of a domain name does not change the situation, because
bad faith cannot be presumed solely on the basis of that circumstance.
lt will only be possible to challenge a subsequent filing of a trademark or tradename application for a sign previously used as a domain name when:
-
the trademark used as a domain name is a well-known trademark, hence it is
not possible to claim ignorance of its existence
previous or concurrent conduct by the applicant of the trademark makes it
possible to infer that the filing was speculative in nature
the application was filed in bad faith, or
the applicant of the trademark has been a representative or had business
dealings with the owner of the domain name
the domain name has been used as a tradename (when the two are in fact
the same) and use in Spain can be demonstrated.
7.2-E
Advertising use is not considered sufficient use in itself, and the simple presence of a
registered trademark as an Internet domain name must be taken as the equivalent of advertising use.
245
Such use could only be construed to be sufficient with a view to keeping a trademark in
force if use of the name on the Internet gives rise to effective business dealings in respect
of the goods or services for which the trademark used as a domain name has been registered.
lt would be sufficient for the registered trademark to be the same as the subdomain name
for it to be regarded as in use; the top-level domain name does not have to be included.
7.2-F
This question has been answered in the preceding section.
7.2-G
The owner of a trademark in Spain holds the exclusive right to use that mark in advertising.
Use of a domain name identical to an earlier mark to offer the goods or services covered
by that mark is, at minimum, advertising use and hence would infringe the trademark
owner's rights, although the courts may require effective business transaction to have
been carried out in the jurisdiction concerned. Obviously, in the case of well-known marks,
advertising use should suffice.
The Spanish courts have not handed down any jurisprudence on this issue, hence it has
not been possible to address
Whether the transnational scope of the Internet means that there is no infringement unless there has been specific advertising use in Spain, directly
or indirectly
Whether effective transactions are required, which would be difficult for the
trademark owner to prove, unless some sort of presumption is established.
7.2-H
The ease with which goods or services offered over the Internet can be accessed by peo-
pie everywhere cannot exempt the domain name holder from the obligation to check
whether there are trademark rights that might conflict with his domain name in any jurisdiction.
There are two implementations that could afford relief by limiting the heavy responsibility
this entails for the owner of a domain name:
Including on the web page a notice to the effect that the goods or services offered
are only available in certain jurisdictions (those in which the owner of the domain
name is the owner of a registered trademark or in which the owner knows that no
third-party rights are infringed), or
246
Including a claim that use is made in good faith and that use will cease if the owner
is notified of the existence of senior rights that conflict with his own, which would
require the additional conditions as a token of good faith:
Identification of the natural or legal person behind the domain name
Inclusion of an address or other form of contact.
These actions will not afford relief when the domain name reproduces a trademark or
tradename well-known the world over.
7.2-I
Use of a reproduction of an internationally well-known trademark for one of the mass media as a domain name in the marketing of any sort of goods or services must be regarded
as infringement that cannot be neutralized by allegations of good faith, conspicuous by its
absence.
7.2-J
Under Spanish law, for a foreign company's tradename to enjoy protection in Spain under
Article 8 of the Paris Convention, it must be used in Spain.
Use of a tradename as a domain name by a company can only be regarded as constitutIng valid use to protect that tradename if:
The company's activities have been offered specifically in the country in
which protection is claimed (in this case, Spain) or
lt can be demonstrated that business dealings have been performed in that
country as a result of use of the tradename as a domain name.
7.2-K
The same answer as for Question 7.2-C.
7.2-L
The same answer as for Question 7.2-G.
7.2-M
The same answer as for Question 7.2-H.
7.2-N
Activity by a competitor that may mislead consumers as to the origin of a business rendering is considered unfair in Spain.
247
Use of a domain name identical to a prior trademark or tradename on similar goods or
services would clearly be an unfair practice if it could lead to confusion as to the business
origin.
To this end, bad faith is a requirement, and it would suffice for such use to be able to give
rise to the risk of association by consumers.
Therefore, without prejudice to the possibility of attacking the infringement of industrial
property rights in Spain by the means provided for in the trademark legislation (or even
within the more restricted scope of criminal offenses defined under the Penal Code), the
legislation on unfair competition will to a large extent be useful for attacking this type of
conduct, intended as an abuse of free competition by seeking to encroach upon the thirdparty rights of competitors in the marketplace, such that consumers are led to associate
certain goods or services with those of a competitor.
7.2-O
Faced with a domain name that is confusingly similar on the basis of
the name and
the goods, services, or activities
the owner of a registered trademark or tradename can secure court decisions
ordering cessation
providing for payment of compensation for damages.
The court would not be able to order the transfer of the domain name, since it is not a
tradable item.
Although we believe that it would be desirable to agree upon a system (as already exists
for trademarks) that would allow actions to be brought against the owner of a domain
name whose assignment has defrauded the superior rights of a third party (with ES-NIC
as a codefendant), at the present time no provision for this is made in Spanish legislation
on domain names (as is only to be expected, since there are no national regulations addressing these questions) or in the rules and procedures established by ES-NIC.
The only means available in our country at the present time is to have an .es DNS subdomain name invalidated in the courts. Afterwards, once it is free, the complainant organization would have to register that name by filing application in accordance with established rules and procedures.
Since the implementing regulations of many Registries, specifically including the Spanish
authority, ES-NIC, stipulate that they will adhere to court decisions, such decisions ruling
that the owner of a trademark and/or tradename
holds exclusive rights to use it and
hence also to use it as a domain name, to the exclusion of third parties
248
could have practical effect.
On that basis the national authority should cancel the infringer's domain name and issue it
to the owner of the trademark or tradename, should he apply for it.
7.2-P
If a Spanish trademark is infringed by foreigners on the web, Spanish courts will be competent pursuant to the provisions of Article 21 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, inasmuch as the action would involve Spaniards and foreigners, or foreigners and other for-
eigners, in a conflict that has arisen in Spanish territory. Furthermore, since industrial
property rights, including trademark rights, are territorial, use in other countries does not
infringe a Spanish trademark.
The situation could be considered equivalent to a case in which an infringement action is
filed against a foreign company that affixes a Spanish trademark to its goods abroad and
then takes direct steps to ensure that those goods reach Spain. The Spanish courts would
be competent. There is no reason for the situation to be different when the Internet is involved, provided that the offer of goods over the Internet is considered to be use in Spain.
lt is for purposes of infringement, though it may not be for purposes of use sufficient to
prevent vulnerability to cancellation, as discussed above.
7.2-Q
The provisions of Article 125 of the Patent Act would apply for establishing the competent
court, pursuant to Article 40 of the Trademark Act. Accordingly, the competent court would
be the Courts of First Instance in the city that is the seat of the High Court of Justice of the
Autonomous Region in which the defendant is domiciled or, in the case of foreign companies, pursuant to a consistent body of jurisprudence, any Court of First Instance in any city
that is the seat of a Spanish High Court of Justice.
Résumé
1.
Introduction
Le nom de domaine, en tant qu'identification de celui qui place dans le réseau une information, des produits ou des services, tient de la nature du nom commercial, bien qu'il
faille le qualifier de "sui generis".
En partant de cette prémisse, le Groupe Espagnol de l'AIPPI estime nécessaire un
système restrictif de l'accès aux noms de domaine, en particulier aux noms de domaine
appartenant au premier niveau, dénommés génériques, à l'instar du système en vigueur
en Espagne qu'administre ES-NIC, vu qu'indubitablement de strictes normes d'assignation
vont limiter le nombre de conflits entre marques/noms commerciaux et noms de domaine.
Les noms de domaine tenant de la nature des noms commerciaux, il serait à souhaiter
que chaque personne physique ou juridique puisse être seulement titulaire d'un nom de
249
domaine appartenant au second niveau pour chaque nom de domaine correspondant au
premier niveau.
Par ailleurs, l'éventuelle utilisation simultanée de noms de domaine génériques et de
noms de domaine nationaux (par exemple COM.ES ou STORE.ES) donnerait une marge
plus ample pour la coexistence de noms de domaine identiques, correspondant à des enregistrements de marques identiques, mais couvrant des produits ou services différents et
appartenant à des titulaires différents.
D'autres mesures pour éviter des infractions seraient l'existence d'une base de données
de consultation "ON-LINE" sur les noms de domaine désignés par chaque autorité et l'accord d'un laps de temps déterminé pour que les tiers estimant posséder un meilleur droit
puissent formuler des remarques ainsi que la constitution d'un Comité d'Experts de l'autorité enregistreuse pouvant apporter une solution dans un bref délai.
2.
Droit des Marques
Bien qu'un nom de domaine puisse constituer une marque, l'inscription en Espagne
est nécessaire car, dans notre pays, les droits sur les marques ne soit pas acquis
par leur usage mais par leur enregistrement.
Logiquement, lorsqu'on demande l'inscription comme marque d'un nom de domaine
les motifs de refus absolus lui sont applicables, bien que certains manquent d'importance pratique, étant incompatibles avec les noms de domaine.
L'usager non enregistré d'une marque ou d'un nom commercial en Espagne (tel que
l'usage effectué en tant que nom de domaine) ne peut pas contester l'inscription
postérieure dans la modalité de marque du signe utilisé par un tiers, sauf en cas de
mauvaise foi ou de marques notoires.
En vue de prévenir la déchéance pour défaut d'usage d'une marque ou d'un nom
commercial la présence dans le réseau d'un nom de domaine ne peut pas, à elle
seule, être considérée comme un usage suffisant, car, aux côtés de l'usage publicitaire, la législation espagnole exige qu'il se produise des opérations commerciales
effectives.
Toutefois, aux effets de l'infraction des droits de marque, les Tribunaux pourraient
présumer que les opérations commerciales ont été faites avec une simple offre
commerciale, et même s'il ne s'était pas produit de ventes effectives, sauf si, en formulant l'offre, on incluait un avis sur la limitation territoriale de la commercialisation
ou, sinon, si on effectuait une protestation expresse de ce que l'usage est fait de
bonne foi, et qu'il cessera si on a connaissance des meilleurs droits d'un tiers, devant, à cet effet, s'identifier clairement à la page WEB.
A ce jour, il n'a pas été rendu en Espagne de jugements relativement à des conflits
entre marques/noms commerciaux et noms de domaine.
250
Noms Commerciaux
Sans préjudice du grand parallélisme avec ce qui fait l'objet du précédent point deuxième
concernant les marques, il faut préciser que la Loi espagnole exige que, pour que le nom
commercial d'une entité étrangère soit protégé en Espagne sous le couvert de l'article 8
de la Convention d'Union, il soit utilisé dans notre pays.
Concurrence Déloyale
Sans préjudice de ce que les infractions du Droit de Propriété Industrielle puissent être
également poursuivis en Espagne par les voies prévues par la législation sur les marques
(ou même pénale) c'est l'institution de la concurrence déloyale qui s'adapte le mieux à la
poursuite de ce type de conduites dont la finalité est celle de dénaturer la libre concurrence.
Sanctions
Le nom de domaine n'étant pas une figure légale et n'étant pas reconnue comme objet de
commerce, actuellement il n'est pas possible qu'un tribunal ordonne le transfert d'un nom
de domaine à un tiers possédant de meilleurs droits, et, par conséquent, il n'est pas possible d'exercer une action en revendication, bien que cela soit souhaitable.
Actuellement, et sans préjudice de ce qu'il n'existe pas encore de précédents judiciaires,
ce qu'un Tribunal peut faire est annuler l'enregistrement d'un nom de domaine sous "ES"
ensuite, ledit nom de domaine étant devenu libre, l'organisation requérante demande un
nouvel enregistrement en sa faveur, conformément aux normes et procédures établies.
Droit international privé
Au cas où une marque espagnole serait enfreinte, ce sont les tribunaux espagnols qui
seront compétents, étant donné qu'il s'agirait d'un procès dû à un conflit produit sur territoire espagnol, la législation espagnole étant donc celle qui est applicable.
Zusammenfassung
Einführung
Soweit der Domain Name Information, Produkte oder Dienstleistungen ins Netz bringt,
1.
gehört er der Natur nach zum Handelsnamen, auch wenn er als "sui generis" zu bezeichnen ist.
Unter dieser Voraussetzung hält die spanische Gruppe der AIPPI für den Zugang von
Domain Names, besonders für die sogenannten generischen Domain Names ersten
Grades, ein dem in Spanien gültigen, von ES-NIC verwalteten System ähnliches, restriktives Zugangssystem für notwendig, denn zweifelsohne werden strenge Zuteilungsnormen
die Anzahl von Konflikten zwischen Marken/Handeisnamen und Domain Names begrenzen.
251
Da Domain Names der Natur nach zu den Handeisnamen gehören, wäre es wünschenswert, dass jede natürliche oder juristische Person für jeden Domain Name ersten Ranges
nur Inhaber eines Domain Names zweiten Ranges sein könnte.
Andererseits würde die mögliche gleichzeitige Benutzung von generischen und nationalen
Domain Names (beispielsweise COMES oder STORE.ES) für die Koexistenz von identischen Domain Names, die identischen eingetragenen Marken für verschiedene Produkte
oder Dienstleistungen entsprechen und verschiedenen Inhabern gehören, einen weiteren
Rahmen setzen.
Andere Massnahmen, um Verletzungen zu vermeiden, wären die Existenz einer on-line
abzurufenden Datenbank für von jeder einzelnen Behörde bezeichnete Domain Names
und die Gewährung einer Zeitspanne für Bemerkungen Dritter, die glauben, ein besseres
Recht zu besitzen, und eine kurzfristige Lösung durch einen Fachausschuss der eintragenden Behörde.
2.
Markenrecht
Auch wenn ein Domain Name eine Marke darstellen kann, ist dazu in Spanien die
Eintragung nötig, denn Markenrechte werden in unserem Land nicht durch die Benutzung sondern durch die Eintragung erworben.
Wenn für einen Domain Name die Eintragung als Marke beantragt wird, sind darauf
logischerweise die absoluten Zurückweisungsmotive anwendbar, obwohl einige davon praktisch keine Bedeutung haben, weil sie mit Domain Names unvereinbar sind.
Der nicht eingetragene Benutzer einer Marke oder eines Handelsnamens in Spanien
(wie beispielsweise die Benutzung als Domain Name) kann die spätere Eintragung
eines von einem Dritten benutzten Zeichens nicht anfechten, es sei denn es läge
böse Absicht vor oder die Marken wären notorisch bekannt.
Um der Löschung einer Marke oder eines Handelsnamens wegen Nichtbenutzung
vorzubeugen, kann die Anwesenheit eines Domain Names im Netz allein nicht als
ausreichend betrachtet werden, denn zusammen mit der Benutzung in der Werbung
fordert die spanische Gesetzgebung, dass wirklich Handelsoperationen durchgeführt
werden.
In bezug auf die Verletzung von Markenrechten könnten die Gerichte jedoch annehmen, dass Handelsoperationen mit einem einfachen Handelsangebot durchgeführt worden sind, auch wenn keine effektiven Verkäufe stattgefunden hätten, es sei
denn, in das Angebot wäre ein Hinweis auf die territoriale Beschränkung der Kommerzialisierung aufgenommen worden, oder in einem anderen Fall würde ausdrücklich protestiert, dass die Benutzung gutwillig vorgenommen wurde und eingestellt
wird, wenn über die besseren Rechte eines Dritten informiert wird, was zu diesem
Zweck eindeutig auf seiner WEB-Seite identifiziert werden muss.
Bisher sind in Spanien noch keine Urteile über Konflikte zwischen Marken/Handelsnamen und Domain Names gefällt worden.
252
Handelsnamen
Unbeschadet der bedeutenden Parallele zu den im vorhergehenden Punkt 2 enthaltenen
Kommentaren über Marken, muss präzisiert werden, dass das spanische Gesetz fordert,
dass der Handelsname einer ausländischen Firma, damit er in Spanien nach dem Artikel 8
der PVÜ geschützt wird, in Spanien benutzt werden muss.
Unlauterer Wettbewerb
Unbeschadet dessen, dass Verletzungen des gewerblichen Eigentumsrechts in Spanien
auch über die in der Markengesetzgebung (oder sogar im Strafgesetz) aufgezeigten
Wege verfolgt werden können, ist es die Institution des unlauteren Wettbewerbs, die sich
für die Verfolgung von Verhaltensweisen dieser Art, deren Zweck es ist, den freien
Wettbewerb zu verfälschen, am besten eignet.
Strafen
Da es sich beim Domain Name nicht um eine gesetzliche Figur handelt und er nicht als
Handelsgegenstand anerkannt ist, ist es derzeit nicht möglich, dass ein Gericht die Übertragung eines Domain Names auf einen Dritten mit besseren Rechten anordnet, und daher ist es nicht möglich, eine Feststellungsklage einzuleiten, auch wenn dies wünschenswert wäre.
Unbeschadet dessen, dass es noch keine gerichtlichen Präzedenzfälle gibt, kann derzeit
ein Gericht die Eintragung eines Domain Names unter ".ES" löschen, und die klagende
Organisation kann, nachdem der besagte Domain Name frei ist, nach den festgelegten
Normen und Verfahren eine Neueintragung zu ihren Gunsten anmelden.
Internationales Privatrecht
Bei Verletzung einer spanischen Marke wären die spanischen Gerichte zuständig, denn
es würde sich um einen auf spanischem Staatsgebiet entstandenen Prozess handeln,
womit also immer die spanische Gesetzgebung anwendbar ist.
253
Sweden
Suède
Schweden
Report Q 143
in the name of the Swedish Group
by Peter von HEIDENSTAM, Jon DAL and Michael PLOGELL
Internet domain names, trademarks and tradenames
Introductory remarks
The registrar of domain names in Sweden (se), named internic.se, is a non profit organisation which has no status in law. The registration conditions and policies used by internic.se can shortly be summarised as follows;
Domain names within Sweden shall refer to a registered organisation (company, association, etc.) with a permanent business in Sweden. The domain name shall in an unique way
reflect the tradename of the organisation. An organisation may register only one domain
name. Names of geographical places are mainly reserved for municipalities etc., i.e. those
who by right may lay a claim to the name. Protected names, trademarks, etc. may only be
used by those who own the right to it. Certain well known acronyms and abbreviations are
not accepted, for example ccmail.se etc. Some types of organisations may only obtain
tradename protection on a County level and not for the whole of Sweden. These organisations may only register their domain name with the addition of a letter indicating in what
County the organisation is registered, for example, xxx.a.se, xxx.b.se.
In Sweden the protection of trademarks and tradenames are based on two different Acts,
the Trade Marks Act and the Trade Names Act. The two Acts grants a cross-protection
between trademarks and tradenames. lt is the type of symbol, the use of which is responsible for the alleged infringement, which determines which Act is applicable, e.g. if someone uses a trademark which is confusingly similar to a protected tradename it is the provisions in the Trade Marks Act that is applicable. Trade symbols are also protected according to certain provisions in the Marketing Practices Act.
Answers to Questionnaire
(a)
In spite of that internic.se applies fairly strict registration conditions, the problem
remains that the Swedish tradename registry consists of a multitude of co-existing
similar tradenames, e.g. used for different kinds of businesses, which implies that it
will be the first applicant of the co-existing similar tradenames that will occupy the
most desirable second-level domain. One solution to this problem could be to add a
new level in the domain name which identifies the category of business.
254
internic.se. is most probably a private body and it is therefore not possible to appeal
its decisions to an administrative court. However, decisions by the internic.se might
be subject to jurisdiction by the general courts. In the absence of specific legislation
or guidance from the case law the situation remains unclear.
Trademark law
(b)
In Sweden, protection for trademarks under the Swedish Trade Marks Act, is obtained either through establishment on the Swedish market or registration.
The original function of a domain name was to provide the user of it with a way of
connecting with the holder of the domain name, i.e. like a phone number. However,
the second-level domain name gives information about the company using the domain name. When a company uses a famous trademark as second-level domain,
e.g. Kodak, then the user expects to get connected with the company that markets
Kodak-products. The connection between domain names and trademarks is obvious, they both indicate the origin of the goods and guides consumers in their exercise of choice. This is the functions that usually is described as the core function of
trademarks. A domain name is capable of fulfilling this function.
There is no special law or procedure in Sweden in order to gain trademark protection for a domain name. If a domain name is considered to be distinctive, it is possible to gain trademark protection for the domain name. However, the top-level domain which indicates in which register the domain name is registered cannot be regarded as having a distinguishing function and it is therefore not possible to assert
an exclusive right in that part of the domain name.
A trademark is regarded as established on the market when it is, within a significant
portion of the circle for which it is intended, known as symbol for the goods or services which are being made available under it.
The wies on absolute invalidity of trademarks do not also apply to domain names.
However, the rules on absolute invalidity of trademarks are similar to the rules on
absolute invalidity of tradenames, and those rules have, to some extent, indirect
effect also on domain names (See Question k infra).
According to the Swedish Trade Marks Act and the Swedish Trade Names Act a
trademark or a tradename may not be registered if it is confusingly similar to a trade
symbol which, at the time of the application, is being used by another person and
the applicant had knowledge about that use at the time of the application and had
not used the mark before the other symbol was first used. If a trademark or tradename has been registered contrary to the respective Act and the ground for refusing the registration still exists, the registration may be invalidated by a competent
court. The rules regarding the filing of a trademark or a tradename application in
bad faith are universal, thus, the use may take place anywhere in the world. Furthermore, it is not a requirement that the trade symbol is well known. Provided that
the use of a domain name is regarded as use of a trade symbol the provisions described above apply also to domain names.
255
The Swedish Trade Marks Act contains a rule on compulsory use of a registered trademark. The Act stipulates that if a trademark has not been used during
the previous five years and the proprietor is unable to show proper reason for the
failure to use the mark, registration of the mark can be revoked. The requirements
for "genuine use" of a trademark are:
(e and f)
the trademark shall be used for its purpose as a trademark and not as a
tradename or personal name,
the use of the trademark shall be seriously intended, e.g. it is not regarded
as genuine use if it is used in fictive transactions,
both use of the trademark on the product and in connection with the offer
and sale of the product can be regarded as genuine use and
marketing activities such as advertising may constitute genuine use, provided that the goods or services for which the trademark is used are available on the Swedish market in plausible time after the marketing activity was
carried out.
Under the condition that:
the use of the domain name is considered as a trademark use (see Question
b supra),
the general requirements for genuine use, accounted for above, are met and
the domain name has been used in Sweden, in connection with the goods or
services for which the trademark has been registered,
the use of the domain name can constitute a maintaining use of the trademark.
If the domain name is used on the Internet only as an e-mail address, and not as a
mark for the goods or services offered, it will not be considered as a trademark use
and consequently not qualify as maintaining use of the registered trademark. The
mere registration of a domain name does not constitute use of the registered
trademark.
If the domain name as such is not registered as a trademark, but only the secondlevel domain name thereof (cfr. 2.9), the use of the domain name may constitute
maintaining use of the trademark included therein. The compulsory use requirement
in the Trade Marks Act is regarded as satisfied even if the mark has only been used
in a form other than that in which it is registered, provided the deviation between
the mark as registered and the mark as used is limited to details and does not alter
the mark's individual character.
As long as the goods or services for which the domain name is used are offered or
intended to be offered to the Swedish public, the geographical location of the Web
site (in Sweden or abroad) is of no relevance. Nevertheless, it is of course difficult
256
for a trademark owner with a Web site located in France to argue that he has the
intention of offering goods or services to the Swedish public if the goods or services
in question could not easily be sent to Sweden and he has not arranged with a distributor in Sweden.
Protection through establishment on the market expires automatically when the distinctive symbol is no longer generally known on the market.
An Internet domain name can infringe another party's Swedish trademark right if the
domain name is used as a trademark or tradename in Sweden (see Question b, e
and f supra and j infra), and the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, i.e. it is identical or similar and used for goods or services of the same or
similar kind as the other party's trademark. If the use of the domain name is regarded as a trademark use, the Trade Marks Act is applicable. The domain name is
then considered to be used in Sweden if goods or services for which the domain
name is used are offered or intended to be offered in Sweden. If the use of the domain name is regarded as a tradename use, the Trade Names Act is applicable.
Use of a domain name on the Internet will probably be regarded as use in Sweden
irrespective of in which country the Web site is located since the Web site is reachable by people in Sweden. However, for there to be an infringement in a Swedish
tradename right there will also have to be confusion or risk of confusion on the
Swedish market, for example, that people in Sweden are likely to believe that it is
the owner of the Swedish tradename right that is responsible also for the activity on
the Web site. lt will be difficult for an owner of a Swedish tradename right to show
that people in Sweden will be confused by the use of the domain name if there is
nothing on the Web site to indicate that the activity on the Web site is directed towards Sweden or in any other way connected to Sweden.
The requirement that symbols shall be deemed to be confusingly similar only if they
relate to goods or services of the same or similar kind is subject to the exception,
which is also a statute in the Trade Marks Act and the Trade Names Act, concerning symbols which have a reputation (cp. Art. 5.2 Trade Mark directive
89/1 04/EEG). Therefore, under the condition that, the other party's trademark or
tradename is a symbol that is considered as having a reputation, the domain name
can - in spite of that it is used for dissimilar goods or services - infringe the other
party's trademark or tradename right.
If the owner of a Web site, due to the fact that it would constitute an infringement in
an existing trademark right, does not sell goods or services to people in Sweden,
and is not intending to do so in the future, then he is not committing trademark infringement in Sweden. lt is, however, important to note that it is enough that goods
or services are sold to one person in Sweden on one occasion for there to be a
trademark infringement.
If the goods or services from the Web site are ordered on-line but distributed
through ordinary mail the owner of the Web site may fairly easy ensure that no
goods or services are sold to people in Sweden. Also if the goods or services are
distributed on-line it is, in most cases, possible to find out the origin of the visitor
and thus to prevent him from buying goods or services if he is from Sweden.
257
To reduce the risk of unknowingly selling goods or services to Sweden the Web
owner could use different kinds of disclaimers, for example, informing visitors from
Sweden that they are not allowed to buy goods or services from the Web site.
However, if a visitor from Sweden, despite the disclaimer and other precautionary
measures taken by the Web owner, buys goods or services from the Web site, the
owner of the Web site commits trademark infringement in Sweden.
(j)
The Swedish Group does not believe that it is generally the case that use of a domain name for whatever products or services, which is identical or similar to a
trademark which have been registered for means of communication, wifi infringe
that trademark.
Tradename law
The Swedish Trade Names Act defines a tradename; as "the name under which an
undertaking conducts its business". Tradename use are often congruent to the use
of the trademark, but there are exceptions. Among those are the signing for a firm
and statement of address on letterheads, signs or in advertisements, all use which
are protected under the Trade Names Act but not under the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, use of a domain name as an particular address for an undertaking, e.g.
as an e-mail address, can constitute tradename use.
As with Swedish trademarks, tradename protection in Sweden can arise either
through registration or through establishment on the market. A tradename is established on the market, once it is known as a designation of the proprietor's business
by a significant proportion of the Swedish circle to whom the undertaking's business
is addressed. However, it need neither to be established on the market throughout
the whole of Sweden nor is it necessary that the business, for which the tradename
is used, is conducted in Sweden in order to be entitled to protection. Consequently
a tradenarne can be established in Sweden, e.g. by use in marketing before the introduction of the business in Sweden. But even if the tradename is not used in marketing directed against the Swedish market it can in exceptional cases be established in Sweden, e.g. that it occurs in advertisements in foreign press which is distributed in Sweden or in Web sites on the Internet.
Under the condition that the use of the second-level domain name is considered as
a tradename, e.g. as an e-mail address, and not only as a trademark, and that this
domain name is established on the Swedish market as a designation of the proprietor's business by a significant proportion of the circle to whom the undertaking's
business is addressed, the use of the second-level domain name can be sufficient
to create, and maintain, a tradename right to the second-level domain name included therein.
The registration policy of internic.se does not contain any direct rules on absolute
invalidity of domain names. However, the Swedish Trade Names Act contains rules
on absolute invalidity and those rules have, to some extent, indirect effect also on
domain names, since a domain name must in a unique manner reflect the tradename of the applying organisation.
258
However, due to the fact that a domain name does not have to consist of the whole
tradename but may consist also of a part of the tradename it is conceivable that a
domain name may be registered although, for example, contrary to public moral.
The company Swedish EXpress AB, could for example obtain a registration for the
domain name SEX.SE. Furthermore, a domain name does not have to be used for
the same business activity as that for which the tradename is registered. Thus, a
domain name could be used in connection with goods or services for which it is deceptive. Nothing in the registration policy would prevent the registration and maintenance of such a domain name.
(I)
See question (g) infra.
The domain name holder may use disclaimers and other precautionary measures to
lessen the risk of confusion on the Swedish market, for example, by informing Web
site visitors that the company conducting its business activity on the Web site is a
US company with no relation to companies with similar tradenames in other countries. However, the Swedish courts have generally been reluctant to accept arguments that disclaimers lessen the risk of confusion on the market.
Unfair competition
Sweden does not have a general law on unfair competition but the Swedish Marketing Practices Act contains prohibitions against improper marketing. The Act is
applicable to marketing activities in all medium, also on the Internet. A marketing
activity does not have to be conducted in Sweden but need to be directed towards
a Swedish audience to fall within the ambit of the Act. Factors relevant to the question of whether a marketing activity is directed to a Swedish audience are, for example, if the information is in Swedish or in any other way adopted to Swedish conditions, if the goods or services offered for sale may only be found in Sweden, if
there is a telephone number especially for Swedish customers, if it is practically
possible to deliver the goods or services in question to Sweden etc. If a marketing
activity is regarded as directed towards Sweden it is not necessary to show actual
sale of any goods or services to Sweden for there to be improper marketing.
The prohibition against non-identification in advertisements (Article 5), misleading
advertising (Article 6) and misleading imitations (Article 8) are of special interest for
domain names.
According to Article 5 of the Act, improper marketing is at hand if it is not evident
who is responsible for a marketing activity. If a marketing activity is directed towards
Sweden and the domain name is confusingly similar to another person's, in Sweden, well known and distinctive trade symbol it is likely that this would be regarded
as an improper marketing practices. People in Sweden would be led to believe that
it is the company behind the well known and distinctive trade symbol that is responsible for the marketing activity.
According to Article 6 of the Act, a businessman is not allowed to use statements or
other descriptions that are misleading regarding the businessman's own or any
259
other businessmen's business in its marketing ("marketing" = all measures intended
to further the sale of products, services or other commodities). The marketing of a
product or service through a Web site should be considered as "marketing". If a
businessman in this context uses a domain name which is identical or similar to another party's trademark and/or tradename, it might be successfully attacked on the
basis of the rule regarding misleading advertising, if it is considered to be misleading regarding his business.
According to Article 8 of the Act, a undertaking may not in marketing use imitations
that are misleading by being easily confusable with the well known and distinctive
products of another undertaking. The Article is applicable to the use of imitations of
all kinds of trademarks such as wordmarks and the shape or the ornamental goods
or their packages provided the trademark is well known and distinctive in Sweden.
In case of violation against the above mentioned Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Marketing Practices Act generally the same sanctions as in intellectual property law, with
the exception of criminal penalties, apply (see Question o infra).
Sanctions
The remedies available in the Trade Marks Act and the Trade Names Act are: injunction together with a conditional fine (a form of predetermined damages which
are paid to the State if the infringing party breaches the injunction), interlocutory injunctions, damages, penal sanctions (fines or imprisonment for a maximum of two
years) and various security measures (e.g. ordering that the infringing trademark
shall be removed or altered). There are no specific provisions which empowers a
Swedish court to order the transfer of a trademark/tradename from one party to another party. A claim for transfer must be based on general legal principles concerning entitlement to goods. With regard hereto there seems to be no legal possibilities
for a trademark or tradename owner to claim that an infringing domain name shall
be transferred to him.
International private law
The main rule is, that any dispute concerning a trademark or tradename protected
by Swedish law, e.g. an infringement, shall be governed by Swedish legislation.
Foreign legislation may normally be applicable in matters regarding the right to act
as plaintiff, but also contractual references to foreign legislation may be of relevance, e.g. in a licence agreement.
Swedish courts are competent to try an infingement in a Swedish trademark or
tradename, and in such cases sanctions can be imposed in Sweden. A Swedish
court has probably also jurisdiction to hear a claim as to the assessment of damages for infringement of a foreign right, but not a claim as to whether certain conduct constitutes an infringement of that right.
260
Summary and proposal
Infringement in trade symbols which are protected by Swedish law can be attacked on the
basis of the Swedish Trademarks Act and the Swedish Trade Names Act and in some
cases also on provisions in the Swedish Marketing Practices Act. However, the problem
with domain names - besides being an international cross border phenomenon which
leads to jurisdiction and execution problems - is the lack of sufficient legal means to prevent domain names, which are confusingly similar to protected trade symbols, from being
registered. Domain names have become valuable trade symbols and it is therefore important that rules are implemented for protecting the owners of trademarks and tradenames from having their trade symbols registered as domain names by domain name
"grabbers'. Furthermore, rules on how to solve conflicts between two companies with
equal right to a particular domain name should be introduced and these wies should focus
on how confusion on the market could be reduced. Since the Internet is a global phenomenon it is important that the same rules are introduced in all countries with domain
name registrars and also for the 'international" domain names. lt is, finally, important that
legal means are made available for national or international courts to decide in domain
name disputes. lt is desirable that further work is made within AIPPI to contribute to a
harmonization in this area.
Résumé et propositions
Les atteintes portées aux symboles commerciaux protégés par la législation suédoise
peuvent être attaquées sur la base de la loi suédoise sur les marques et la loi suédoise
sur les noms commerciaux et, dans certains cas, également sur la base des dispositions
contenues dans la loi suédoise sur le marketing. Cependant, le problème des noms de
domaine - outre leur caractère transnational qui cause des problèmes concernant la juridiction et l'exécution - consiste dans le fait qu'il n'existe pas suffisamment de moyens
judiciares pour empêcher l'enregistrement des noms de domaine qui prêtent à la confusion avec des symboles commerciaux protégés. Les noms de domaine sont devenus des
symboles commerciaux d'une grande valeur, et il est, par conséquent, important d'appliquer des règles pour protéger les propriétaires de marques et de noms commerciaux
contre l'enregistrement de leurs symboles commerciaux comme noms de domaine par
des "accapareurs" de noms de domaine. Par ailleurs, il faut introduire des dispositions qui
permettent de régler un différend entre deux entreprises ayant le même droit à un certain
nom de domaine, et ces dispositions doivent se concentrer sur une réduction de la confusion sur le marché. Comme l'internet est un phénomène global, il est important d'introduire les mêmes règles dans tous les pays disposant de registres de noms de domaine
ainsi que pour les noms de domaine "internationaux". Finalement, il est important de mettre à la disposition des tribunaux nationaux et internationaux des moyens judiciares pour
que ceux-ci puissent adopter des conclusions définitives sur les litiges concernant des
noms de domaine, Il est souhaitable que plus de travail soit effectué au sein de l'AIPPI
pour contribuer à l'harmonisation en cette matière.
261
Zusammenfassung und Vorschläge
Verletzungen von Handelskennzeichen, die in Schweden gesetzlich geschützt sind, können mit Hilfe des schwedischen Warenzeichengesetzes und des schwedischen Firmennamengesetzes und in einigen Fällen auch mit Hilfe von Bestimmungen im schwedischen
Marktgesetz angegriffen werden. Das Problem mit Domain Namen ist jedoch - abgesehen
davon, dass es eine internationale, grenzüberschreitende Erscheinung ist - der Mangel an
ausreichenden gesetzlichen Mitteln um zu verhindern, dass Domain Namen, die mit geschützten Handelskennzeichen verwechselbar sind, registriert werden. Domain Namen
haben sich zu wertvollen Handelskennzeichen entwickelt und es ist deswegen wichtig,
dass Regeln eingeführt werden um Inhaber von Warenzeichen und Firmennamen davor
zu schützen, dass ihre Warenkennzeichen von Domain Namen-"Schnappern" als Domain
Namen registriert werden. Ausserdem sollten Regeln eingeführt werden wie Konflikte zwischen zwei Unternehmen mit gleichem Recht auf einen besonderen Domain Namen zu
lösen sind, wobei diese Regeln darauf ausgerichtet sein sollten wie die Verwechselbarkeit
auf dem Markt zu verringern ist. Da das Internet eine globale Erscheinung ist, ist es wichtig, dass in allen Ländern mit Domain Namen-Registratoren die gleichen Regeln eingeführt werden und das auch für "internationale' Domain Namen. Schliesslich ist es wichtig,
dass gesetzliche Mittel zur Verfügung gestellt werden für nationale oder internationale
Gerichte um in Domain Namen-Streitigkeiten Entscheidungen zu fällen. Es ist wünschenswert dass in der AIPPI weitere Arbeit verrichtet wird um zu einer Harmonisierung
auf diesem Gebiet beizutragen.
262
Switzerland
Suisse
Schweiz
Bericht Q 143
im Namen der Schweizer Landesgruppe
von Robert G. BRINER (Vorsitzender)
Internet Domain Namen, Marken und Handelsnamen
Einleitende Fragen
Frage a) Teil 1
Verhinderung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten über Domain-Namen durch den Erlass strengerer
Registrierungsvoraussetzungen?
Grundsätzlich Ist nicht zu erwarten, dass strengere Registrierungsvoraussetzungen
Rechtsstreitigkeiten verhindern; vielmehr würden die unterschiedlichen Standpunkte der
Parteien einfach schon im Registrierungsverfahren auszutragen sein statt später. Ein anderes Resultat ergäbe sich nur wenn man annähme, dass man kein Recht auf Eintragung
eines Domain-Namens hat, im Gegensatz zur Eintragung einer Marke oder einer Firma
(Handelsname). Dann hätten aber strengere Registrierungsvoraussetzungen die Folge,
dass Personen einen Domain-Namen nicht eintragen könnten, obwohl nach marken- oder
firmenrechtlichen Gesichtspunkten ein solcher zulässig wäre. Dies ist, in Anbetracht der
rasch zunehmenden Bedeutung des Internet (Information Highway), nicht erwünscht.
Frage a) Teil 2
Möglichkeiten einer aussergerichtlichen Beilegung solcher Streitigkeiten.
Eine aussergerichtliche Beilegung von Streitigkeiten bietet nur dann Vorteile gegenüber
gerichtlicher Beilegung, wenn sie schneller, oder fachkundiger, oder günstiger ist. Alle anderen Voraussetzungen für ein rechtsstaatliches Verfahren - zum Beispiel Unabhängigkeit
der Richter, Recht auf Anhörung usw. - müssen auch bei aussergerichtlicher
(schiedsgerichtlicher) Beilegung gewährleistet sein. Zu den Vorteiles eines aussergerichtlichen Verfahrens zählen aber Internationalität, Fachkunde, Ausschluss der Presse, sowie
Vermeidung von Gerichtsstandsproblemen. Nach Schweizer Recht ist die aussergerichtliche Beilegung von Domain-Name-Streitigkeiten zulässig.
263
Frage a) Teil 3
Bemühungen und konkrete Massnahmen in der Schweiz
In der Schweiz sind Domain-Namen bisher von einer universitätsnahen Stiftung (SWITCH)
registriert worden. Zur Vermeidung von "Reservationen" hat SWITCH eine jährliche Registrierungsgebühr zu erheben begonnen. Bei Zweifeln an der Rechtmässigkeit der Registrierung (Beispiel: eine Firma Heavenshell will Shell.ch eintragen) verlangt SWITCH zwar
Nachweise; soweit es der Arbeitsgruppe bekannt ist, wird dann allerdings trotz möglicherweise bleibenden Zweifeln registriert. Rechtsstreitigkeiten werden von SWITCH nicht beurteilt. SWITCH akzeptiert aber rechtskräftige Urteile, die unter Dritten ergangen sind. In
der Schweiz wird zurzeit darüber diskutiert, ob die Vergabe und Registrierung von Domain-Namen zukünftig durch das Eidgenössische Institut für Geistiges Eigentum oder durch
das Bundesamt für Kommunikation erfolgen solle.
Fragen zum Markenrecht
Frage b)
Kann ein Domain-Name markenrechtlich geschützt werden und gegebenenfalls unter welchen Voraussetzungen? Probleme und Besonderheiten in diesem Zusammenhang.
Der markenrechtliche Schutz für einen Domain-Namen ist nach den normalen marken-
rechtlichen Regeln möglich. Die Arbeitsgruppe ist der Auffassung, dass Top-LevelDomains (.com, .ch usw.) zwar Bestandteil einer Marke sein können, aber als sehr
schwacher oder sogar freizuhaltender Bestandteil bei der Beurteilung der Verwechselbarkeit bzw. Verletzung unberücksichtigt bleiben müssten. Nach dieser Auffassung wären
SHELL.COM und SHELL.CH verwechselbar.
Frage c)
Inwiefern gelten die Regeln über die absolute Ungültigkeit von Marken auch für DomainNamen?
Für Domain-Namen gibt es, aus der Sicht der zurzeit registrierenden Stellen, lediglich die
technische Unmöglichkeit, zwei gleiche Domain-Namen zu vergeben; insofern fallen markenrechtliche Ueberlegungen völlig ausser Betracht.
Aus der markenrechtlichen Sicht, d.h. wenn eine einzutragende Marke künftig als DomainName verwendet werden soll, gelten die markenrechtlichen Ungültigkeitsgründe ohne jede Aenderung.
Frage d)
Kann der zeitlich frühere Gebrauch eines Domain-Namens, der eine Marke enthält, Gebrauch darstellen, so dass die spätere Registrierung der Marke durch einen anderen als
bösgläubig zu qualifizieren wäre? Was sind bejahenden falls die Voraussetzungen für einen solchen Gebrauch?
Nach dem System der Registrierungspriorität (im Gegensatz zur Gebrauchspriorität) hindert ein früherer Gebrauch durch einen Dritten nicht die Eintragung einer Marke. Denkbar
264
ist, dass unter besonderen Umständen eine solche Markeneintragung rechtsmissbräuchlich wäre (Rechtsmissbrauch als Oberbegriff für Bösgläubigkeit und verwandte Tatbestände). Es ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass nach schweizerischem Markenrecht ein vorbenutztes
Zeichen im bisherigen Umfang grundsätzlich auch dann weiterbenutzt werden darf, wenn
es später ein Dritter als Marke registriert.
Ob ein Domain-Name einen markenrechtlich relevanten Gebrauch darstellt, hängt davon
ab, ob er zur Kennzeichnung von Waren oder Dienstleistungen verwendet worden ist.
Frage e)
Gilt die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens als IP-A dresse eines Se,vers, auf dem Waren
und/oder Dienstleistungen angeboten werden, für die der Domain-Name als Marke eingetragen Ist, als Gebrauch dieser Marke?
Die blosse Tatsache, dass ein Domain-Name registriert ist, kann keinen markenmässigen
Gebrauch darstellen, weil ein solcher nur vorliegt, wenn (die beanspruchten) Waren oder
Dienstleistungen mit der Marke gekennzeichnet werden. Werden auf der Website mit dem
Domain-Namen Waren und Dienstleistungen angeboten, liegt darin ein markenmässiger
Gebrauch, nicht anders als wenn sie in einem Prospekt oder auf Firmenpapier angeboten
werden. Die Anbringung des Zeichens auf der Ware selbst ist nicht notwendig.
Frage f)
Wird die Voraussetzung, dass der Gebrauch der Marke im Staatsgebiet stattfinden muss,
durch die Globalität des Internet automatisch erfüllt? Wenn dies nicht der Fall ist, beschreiben Sie bitte die Voraussetzungen, die dafür erfüllt werden müssen.
Praktisch alle internationalprivatrechtlichen Probleme des Internet sind ungelöst. Aus dem
geltenden Recht ergibt sich keine schlüssige Beantwortung. Die Abrutharkeit von Information alleine ist jedenfalls kein tauglicher Anknüpfungsbegriff. Der Lösungsansatz könnte
sein, dass der Gebrauch dort als erfolgt gilt, wo das Angebot der Waren und Dienstleistungen 'ernsthafr' oder "mit einer gewissen Intensität" erfolgt. Als Indizien dafür sind (am
Beispiel der Schweiz) denkbar:
das Angebot ist auf die Schweiz zugeschnitten, oder ist nur in der Schweiz sinnvoll;
das Angebot erfolgt in einer der Landessprachen;
es kann in Landeswährung bezahlt werden;
das Produkt oder die Dienstleistung kann in der Schweiz für einen in der Schweiz
ansässigen Abnehmer bestellt werden;
das Angebot wird durch eine Person/Firma mit (Wohn-)Sitz in der Schweiz gemacht;
das Produkt stammt aus der Schweiz;
die Dienstleistung wird in der Schweiz erbracht.
265
Frage g)
Kann ein Domain-Name auf dem Intern et die Markenrechte eines anderen verletzen?
Wenn ja, unter welchen Voraussetzungen? Erläutern Sie den Umfang des Markenschutzes gegenüber Domain-Namen und behandeln Sie bekannte und verbreitete Marken.
Wenn ein Domain-Name in einem Land markenmässig gebraucht wird, wo die Marke für
einen Dritten eingetragen ist, werden dessen Rechte selbstverständlich verletzt. Es bestehen diesbezüglich keine Besonderheiten. Auf jeden Fall sind Markenverletzungen nach
der geltenden internationalen Rechtslage für jedes Land gesondert zu betrachten; die
Anwendung des Ubiquitätsprinzips oder Sendestaatprinzips für Markenverletzungen ist
abzulehnen. In der Schweiz sind bisher keine gerichtlich beurteilten Fälle mit berühmten
Marken nach PVUe bekanntgeworden.
Frage h)
Welche Massnahmen kann der Inhaber eines Domain-Namens vorkehren, um zu verhindern, dass er mit der Verwendung seines Domain-Namens in Ländern ein Markenrecht
verletzt, in denen er keine Geschäftsinteressen hat? Aeussern Sie sich zum Inhalt einer
allfälligen Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärung.
Nach dem heutigen Stand der Technik bzw. dem heutigen Standard auf dem Internet gibt
es nach dem Wissensstand der Arbeitsgruppe keine Möglichkeit, Domain-Namen in bestimmten Ländern zu sperren bzw. "unsichtbar" zu machen.
Es versteht sich von selbst, dass die Inverkehrsetzung von Waren oder Erbringung von
Dienstleistungen in einem Land, wo dritte Markenrechte entgegenstehen, eine ganz normale Markenrechtsverletzung darstellt, gleichgültig ob das Angebot über Internet erfolgte
oder mit herkömmlichen Mitteln.
Die Frage stellt sich also vor allem bezüglich der Werbung bzw. dem Angebot über das
Internet. Wenn man einer Erklärung, Waren/Dienstleistungen in bestimmte Länder nicht
liefern zu wollen, die Wirkung beimisst, dass markenrechtlich kein Angebot und auch keine andere "lnverkehrbringung" vorliege, werden keine Markenrechte verletzt. Dieselbe
Ueberlegung kann man anstellen für eine ausdrückliche Erklärung, dass sich ein bestimmtes Angebot nicht an die Bewohner eines bestimmten Landes oder mehrere Länder
richte. Das würde zwar nicht in jeder Hinsicht der herkömmlichen Dogmatik und Gerichtspraxis entsprechen, hätte aber für das Internet den Vorteil einer praktischen und
handhabbaren Lösung.
Frage j)
Wie ist die in Ziff. 2.13 gestellte Frage über die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens für
Waren und Dienstleistungen zu beantworten, wenn dieser Domain-Name gleich oder ähnlich wie eine für Kommunikationsmittel eingetragene Dienstleistungsmarke eines anderen
lautet?
Ausschlaggebend Ist, welche Waren/Dienstleistungen für die Marke eingetragen sind.
Wenn ein Angebot über ein "Kommunikationsmittel" wie das Internet erfolgt, wird also
nicht von vornherein dieses mit der Marke gekennzeichnet. Auch bei Verwendung von
266
Karton für eine Verpackung werden keine Markenrechte Dritter verletzt, die für Kartonwaren eingetragen sind.
Fragen zum Recht des Handeisnamens
Vorbemerkung: die Arbeitsgruppe geht davon aus, dass damit Firmenrecht gemeint ist.
Frage j)
Kann die Registrierung und Verwendung eines Domain-Namens auf dem Internet genügen, um am darin enthaltenen second-level Domain-Namen einen Handelsnamen zu begründen und beizubehalten? Genügt es angesichts der Globalität des Internet, den Domain-Namen, der den Handeisnamen des Inhabers des Domain-Namens mit einschliesst,
zu ve,wenden? Falls dies nicht genügen sollte, welche weiteren Voraussetzungen müssen dann erfüllt sein?
Die Eintragung von Handelsnamen (Firmen) hat nach Schweizer Recht beim Handeisregisteramt zu erfolgen. Die Registrierung und Verwendung eines Domain-Namens genügt
also nicht. Die rechtliche Gesellschaftsform muss teilweise zwingend der Firma beigefügt
werden (z.B. "GmbH"), in einer der Landessprachen.
Frage k)
Inwieweit finden die Regeln über die absolute Ungültigkeit von Handelsnamen auch auf
Domain-Namen Anwendung?
Gleiche Antwort wie auf Frage c).
Frage I)
Hat die Globalität des Internet zur Folge, dass die gewöhnlichen Kriterien der Verletzung
eines Handelsnamens auch auf Verwendungen eines gleich oder ähnlichen DomainNamens Anwendung. finden? Oder muss ein wie auch immer gearteter spezifischer Bezug
zwischen Ihrem Land bzw. Ihrer Region und der Verwendung des Domain-Namens bestehen (oder der Angebote, die auf dem Seiver mit diesem Domain-Namen gemacht werden)?
Ein Handelsname (Firma) verleiht grundsätzlich nur das Recht, sich gleichen oder verwechselbaren, ebenfalls in der Schweiz eingetragenen oder firmenmässig gebrauchten
Handelsnamen (Firmen) zu widersetzen. Andere Verwechslungsgefahren können unlauteren Wettbewerb darstellen. Für den unlauteren Wettbewerb ist nicht die Landesgrenze
massgeblich (kein Territorialitätsprinzip), sondern die objektive Wirkung auf dem Markt.
Frage m)
Welche Massnahmen muss der Inhaber eines Domain-Namens treffen, um zu verhindern,
dass er durch die Verwendung des Domain-Namens den Handelsnamen eines Dritten in
Ländern verletzt, in denen er keine (nennenswerten) Geschäftsinteressen verfolgt? Und
nochmals: Wäre eine Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärung wirksam? Welchen Inhalt müsste
eine solche Erklärung bejahenden falls aufweisen?
267
Der Handelsname (die Firma) kennzeichnet das Unternehmen, nicht seine Waren oder
Dienstleistungen. Die Verwendung eines Domain-Namens, der einen Handelsnamen
(Firma) eines Dritten verletzt, ist also firmenrechtlich nur dann von Bedeutung, wenn Verwechslungen über die Unternehmen (nicht deren Waren und Dienstleistungen) entstehen.
Die Frage einer Vertriebsbeschränkungserklärung stellt sich nicht. Ausser es sei der Domain-Name auch als Handelsname/Firma eingetragen, ist der Dritte auf Wettbewerbsrecht
angewiesen.
Fragen zum unlauteren Wettbewerb
Frage n)
Kann die Registrierung und Ve,wendung eines Domain-Namens, welcher der Marke eines
Dritten gleich Ist, gestützt auf das Recht des unlauteren Wettbewerbs oder der unerlaub-
ten Handlung angefochten werden? Wenn ja, unter welchen Voraussetzungen? Sollte
Bösgläubigkeit verlangt sein, erläutern Sie dies und führen Sie Beispiele an. Diskutieren
Sie die rechtlichen Möglichkeiten, um die Praktiken des "domain name grabbing" zu verhindern.
Das Wettbewerbsrecht kann herangezogen werden, allerdings nicht für eine "Anfechtung"
der Registrierung und Verwendung, sondern für ein Verbot an den Dritten, den DomainNamen zu verwenden, sowie für einen Befehl, den Domain-Namen löschen zu lassen.
Bösgläubigkeit ist nicht erforderlich.
Grundsätzlich ist denkbar, dass die Registrierungsstelle (in der Schweiz SWITCH) eine
unerlaubte Handlung begeht, wenn sie eine objektiv widerrechtliche Registrierung vornimmt. Die rechtliche Verantwortung der Registrierungsstelle ist aber ungeklärt.
"Domain name grabbing" kann nur durch die Registrierungsinstanz oder spätere gerichtliche Intervention verhindert werden. Die Schweizer Registrierungsstelle SWITCH suspendiert die Registrierung eines Domain-Namens im Falle gerichtlicher Auseinandersetzungen bis eine Einigung oder ein Urteil vorgelegt wird; es liegt also im Interesse des Klägers,
die SWITCH zu informieren.
Fragen zu den Sanktionen
Frage o)
Welche Sanktionen kann ein Gericht gegen den Inhaber eines Domain-Namens aussprechen, der die .Marken oder Handeisnamen eines anderen verletzt oder sich sonstwie gegenüber anderen rechtswidrig verhält? Kann das Gericht die Uebertragung eines DomainNamens von der verletzenden Partei auf den Inhaber der Marke bzw. des Handelsnamens anordnen?
Das Gericht kann die weitere Verwendung verbieten und die Löschung befehlen
(Löschung durch den Dritten, nicht die Registrierungsinstanz), beides unter Strafandrohung. Es kann Schadenersatz zusprechen. Bei vorsätzlicher Rechtsverletzung sind strafrechtliche Sanktionen möglich.
268
Die Uebertragung eines Domain-Namens ist nicht möglich, weil es nach der Rechtslage
kein Recht auf Domain-Namen gibt; das Gericht kann die Registrierungsinstanz nicht verpflichten, einer bestimmten Person (z.B. dem Verletzten) einen bestimmten DomainNamen zuzuerkennen, insbesondere nicht im Falle eines Domain-Namens mit einer internationalen top-level (besonders .com).
Fragen zum internationalen Privatrecht
Frage p)
Welche international-privatrechtliche Regeln Ihres Landes bzw. Ihrer Region sind anwendbar, um das auf eine Streitigkeit über die Verletzung einer Marke oder eines Handeisnamens durch einen Domain-Namen auf dem Internet anwendbare Recht zu bestimmen?
Es sind alle Regeln anwendbar. Klagen aus Unlauterem Wettbewerb sind grundsätzlich
am Wohnsitz des Beklagten anzuheben, subsidiär am Handlungs- oder Erfolgsort; es ist
das Recht des Staates anwendbar, auf den Markt die unlautere Handlung ihre Wirkung
entfaltet. Auch Klagen aus Markenrecht sind grundsätzlich am Wohnsitz des Beklagten
anzuheben; subsidiär kann am Ort geklagt werden, wo der markenrechtliche Schutz beansprucht wird. Klagen betreffend die Gültigkeit oder Eintragung von Markenrechten müssen in der Schweiz angehoben werden. Das anwendbare Recht richtet sich nach dem
Territorialitätsprinzip. Firmenrechtliche Klagen sind am Schweizer Gesellschaftssitz anzuheben und beurteilen sich nach Schweizer Recht.
Frage q)
Welche international-privatrechtlichen Regeln gelten zur Bestimmung des für die Beurteilung solcher Streitigkeiten zuständigen Gerichts?
Siehe Antwort zu Frage p). Nebst dem Schweizer IPRG (Bundesgesetz über das Interna-
tionale Privatrecht vom 18.12.87) ist das sogenannte Lugano-Uebereinkommen vom
16.9.88 anwendbar.
Zusammenfassung
Es gibt kein besonderes Recht oder besondere Rechtsbestimmungen für Domain-Namen.
Bezüglich der Verletzung von Markenrechten, Rechten an Handelsnamen und Unlaute-
rem Wettbewerb gelten daher die herkömmlichen gesetzlichen Bestimmungen. Deren
Anwendung ist vor allem dann schwierig, wenn unklar ist, wie eng die Beziehung zu einem bestimmten Staat oder wie intensiv die Nutzung eines Domain-Namens oder einer
Marke ist. Die Registrierung der Domain-Namen erfolgt in der Schweiz vorderhand durch
eine universitätsnahe Stiftung, welche keine richterlichen oder aussergerichtlichen Funktionen hat.
269
Résumé
Il n'y a aucun droit particulier ni dispositions légales particulières régissant les noms de
domaines. En relation avec la violation du droit de marques, du droit sur les noms commerciaux et les actes de concurrence déloyale, ce sont les règles habituelles qui s'appliquent en la matière. L'application de ces règles peut être difficile lorsqu'il n'est pas clair de
savoir quelle est l'étroitesse de la relation avec un Etat déterminé, ou quelle est l'intensité
de l'utilisation du nom de domaine ou d'une marque. L'enregistrement des noms de domaines s'effectue en Suisse par l'intermédiaire d'un fondation proche des Universités.
Celle-ci n'exerce cependant aucune fonction juridictionnelle ou extra-juridictionnelle.
Summary
Neither a specific law nor particular legal provisions are in existence for domain names.
Therefore, in case of the violation of trademark rights, trade names or commercial names,
and in case of unfair competition, the respective ordinary laws apply. Application of those
laws can become difficult if it is unclear how close the relation is to a particular country, or
how intensive the use of a domain name or of a trade mark is. In Switzerland, the registration of a domain is done, for the time being, through a foundation which is close to the universities and has no judicial or arbitral powers.
270
Thailand
Th alla n d e
Thailand
Report Q 143
in the name of Thai Group
by Rutorn NOPAKUN
Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names
As the issue of domain name protection is brand new in Thailand and there have not been
any laws or precedents concerning it so far, I can only give an opinion based on my own
analysis. I must apologize for not following the format set by the editor, mainly because I
find it to be impossible. The format is designed for countries with suitable laws or at least
some precedents.
There is an organization named Thailand Network Information Center (THNIC) which registers domain names for domestic organizations. Domain names registered with THNIC
end with 'ac.th' if they academic institutions, "co.th" if profit-oriented organizations, "go.th"
if government agencies, "net.th" if network service providers and "or.th" if miscellaneous
(mostly non-profit organizations).
According to THNIC, registration of a domain name does not confer any legal rights to that
name and any disputes between parties over the right to use a particular name are to be
settled between the parties using normal legal methods. I interpret this as meaning that if
the name in dispute is, say, a trademark or corporation name, the parties must use the
trademark or corporate name law to deal with the dispute. I am of the opinion that if a
party uses a domain name which is as existing trademark or corporate name of another
party, such use is an act of use of a name, device, invented designed or any text used by
another in his business or an act aimed at causing the same to appear on goods, packaging, advertisements, price lists, business letters or the like in order to make the public
believe that the goods or business are those of such other person, which is a criminal offense under Section 272 (1) of the Penal Code. I believe this is the closest law applicable
to this issue. Also, I believe that, if injunctive relief or damages are also sought, the trademark or corporate name owner may choose to take civil proceedings under the Civil and
Commercial Code as well. My opinion is based on the principle that the trademark or cor-
porate name owner has the exclusive right to his trademark or corporate name and
therefore can bar other from using it without permission regardless of the form of use. The
use of the make or name on the Internet should basically be regarded as "use" as we
know it and the user should be held liable if he does it without permission.
I wish I could say more about domain name protection in Thailand but, in the lack of specific legislation and precedents, this seems to be impossible. At any rate I do not think any
other country has a clear law on this issue, let alone Thailand. lt would be interesting to
see how the international IP community is going to deal with it.
271
United States of America
Etats-Unis d'Amérique
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
Report Q 143
in the name of the United States Group
by Dr. Ian Jay KAUFMAN
Internet domain names, trademarks and tradenames
Comments on a stricter regime of grant of domain names and extra judicial solutions to domain name disputes
The exponential degree to which use of the Internet has increased in the past decade has
led to clashes over rights to second-level domain names and trademark rights, as legions
of new users seek to establish unique identities on the Internet. In response to this the
principal United States granting authority, Network Solutions, Inc., (°NSJ") has instituted a
dispute resolution policy which gives trademark registrants a means of contesting the
grant of a domain name.1 NSI also requires parties seeking grant of a domain name to
make representations and warranties that, among other things, their domain names do not
infringe the trademark rights of others. This system does not provide for final resolution of
domain name disputes, thereby forcing disputes into the courts or before arbitration panels. The U. S. Group does not favor a change in this system on the grounds that domain
name disputes involving trademark rights are no different from other trademark disputes
and that courts are the proper authorities to interpret the trademark laws of both the
United States and other countries. Accordingly, the U.S. Group opposes the establishment
of stricter registration criteria by the granting authorities than those which presently exist.
Trademark Law
Can a domain name be a suitable candidate for trademark protection, and if so,
under what conditions?
A domain name can be a suitable candidate for trademark protection if it can identify the
domain name as the origin of goods or services and is used in a manner consistent with
the criteria necessary to establish trademark or service mark use, as set forth under the
provisions of the United States trademark law.2 The United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) can register domain names as trademarks or service marks for various
goods and services, including, among other things, retail sales of goods or services and
the provision of interactive services.3 The U.S. Group believes that the standard of regis1
2
Network Solutions' Domain Name Dispute Policy (Rev 02), effective September 9, 1996.
The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. Sections 1051 et seq.
The USPTO is presently revising its internal guidelines concerning the registration of marks containing Internet domain names or covering Internet-related services.
272
trability should be interpreted liberally, to include most Internet activities, as such activities
can technically be interpreted as providing information services. Excluded from registrabil-
ity, of course, would be mere advertising. The elements "http", "www" and all top-level
domain names cannot have trademark significance, although they should be allowed to
form part of the mark. The USPTO considers "http", "www" and the top-level domain
names .EDU, GOy, .NET and ORG to be unitary for trademark purposes; however, it
requires disclaimer of .COM.4
To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trademarks also apply to domain names?
For purposes of registration of a domain name as a trademark the rules of invalidity apply,
as the USPTO would examine the domain name for its suitability as a designator of origin
of goods or services. Neither NSI nor any other registries impose such criteria for registration of a domain name.
Can the prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark constitute sufficient use in order to qualify the subsequent filing by another party of said trademark
as a filing in bad faith?
The United States is a common law jurisdiction that does not have a strict "race to the
register" system. Thus, the necessity of proving bad faith, as envisioned by the framers of
this question, is not necessary. The United States trademark law provides protection for
unregistered trademarks, and trademarks that are not federally registered are often protected under state law as well.5 Thus, a domain name owner who uses a domain name in
a manner consistent with the criteria to establish trademark or service mark use in the
United States should be able to oppose a subsequent trademark application in the United
States on the grounds of his prior use.
Can the use of a domain name as an lP-address of a seiver on which products
and/or services are offered for which the domain name is registered as a trademark
qualify as maintaining use of that trademark?
If a domain name appears solely as an IP address, it is not a trademark or service mark,
as it does not function as an indicator of the source of goods or services. However, if the
domain name is used in a manner that the a consumer would recognize as trademark or
service mark use, then use by a server of an IP-address should qualify as trademark or
service mark use. This accommodates the dual function of a domain name, which is as an
Internet identifier and as a mark of the origin of goods and services. If a domain name is
displayed in a fanciful way at the top of a home page, for example, and does not look like
a mere address, it is clear that this would qualify as maintaining use. Less clear, although
still legitimate use is the display of an address that is linked to icons that illustrate services,
such as the provision of financial or insurance services, or some other link that will lead
the Internet user directly into a database. In such a case, an Internet user will be led to the
services of interest immediately, and the necessary identification of the domain name
owner as a source of services will be made. This is roughly analogous to an "800" number
4
This information was provided informally by Darry Carmine, Esq., of the USPTO.
5
Lanham Act, Section 43(a).
273
being a direct link to the provision of goods and services. On the other hand, use of a domain name as an IP address without the foregoing links probably would not qualify as use.
Thus, a notation such as "e-mail
XYZ.COM for more information" would be insufficient,
as the Internet user is unlikely to perceive the domain name as anything more than an IP
address. The U.S. Group believes that where the indicia of trademark usage is present,
use of a domain name as an lP address for a server will suffice as trademark use. In this
connection, the U.S. Group believes that such indicia should be construed liberally, in favor of a finding of trademark use, in order to accommodate technological advances and to
encourage the proliferation of Internet use.
Is the requirement that maintaining use must occur in the territoiy of the trademark
automatically met as a consequence of the global nature of the Internet?
Under United States law, there are no trademark or service mark rights without commercial use. A trademark registration under the Lanham Act will not issue until the trademark
owner has proven use in a manner that Congress may regulate, and, at common law,
trademark rights can only be acquired through commercial use in the territory in which the
trademark owner is doing business. The mere adoption of a trademark is not sufficient to
establish trademark rights. United States courts have traditionally required actual sale of
goods or provision of services involving actual customers to establish use.6 Thus, actual
sales to United States consumers of goods or services offered on the server of which the
domain name is addressed would be required. The location of the cyberspace address,
however, is immaterial. Given the ephemeral nature of cyberspace, it does not make
sense to hold that maintaining use requires the cyberspäce address to be located in the
United States. An analogy can be found in considering foreign catalog houses that do not
maintain a United States address, but which mail catalogs and ship goods to customers in
the United States. Additionally, dissatisfied U.S. customers can sue in the United States,
based on the contacts provided by the sale of goods to the United States. As Internet users in the United States can access a website irrespective of the site's national origin, and
can purchase goods or services on the Internet, it can be reasoned that, provided that the
use of the domain name qualifies as trademark usage, and goods and/or services are in
fact provided as a result of that contact, sufficient use of the mark has been made for purposes of maintaining use.
Can an Internet domain name infringe another party's rights to a trademark?
U.S. courts have held this to be the case.7 In order to prevent third parties from registering
the trademarks of others as domain names, for the purpose of "selling" the domain names
to the trademark owners for profit, a U.S. Court recently held that such actions constitute
federal trademark infringement. The critical element is a finding of a deliberate intent to
infringe. The courts have been silent thus far on the issue of an innocent party who registers another's trademark as a domain name without a willful intent to infringe the mark.
The U.S. Group is therefore of the opinion that the test for infringement under the Lanham
Act should be applied to such cases. Under U.S. law, infringement is found where a plain-
6
Blue Bell, Inc. y. Farah Mtg. Co. 508 F.2d 433 (2nd Cir. 1975).
Panavision International Inc. y. Dennis Toeppen, 938 F.Supp.616 (C.D.Cal. 1996).
274
tiff proves a likelihood of confusion of the defendant's mark with his mark.8 An intent to
infringe is not, strictly speaking, necessary. Some of the factors that courts consider when
determining whether a mark has been infringed are the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the goods and services, the similarity of trade channels, the notoriety of the plaintiff's
mark, whether other similar marks in respect of similar goods exist, instances of actual
confusion, the variety of goods for which a mark is used and the length of time of any
honest concurrent use without confusion. These criteria are easily adapted to examination
of whether use of a domain name infringes a trademark. Where a famous mark is infringed, however, the scale tips in favor of a finding of infringement, as the likelihood of the
domain name registrant's not knowing of the mark is less. Under the Federal Dilution Act9
the grounds for finding infringement are broadened. Under this Act, an owner of a famous
mark may be afforded relief even if a likelihood of confusion is absent, if a third party's use
dilutes the famous mark's capacity to identify goods or services. This also includes disparaging use. Use of a domain name has an acute potential to fall afoul of the Dilution Act, as
Internet users tend to search for websites based on product or service names, and courts
have found this to be the case.1° Thus, the more famous a mark, the more likely an Internet user may be to mistake a website operated by a domain name owner who uses another's famous trademark as belonging to the trademark owner.
h)
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that
use of his domain name constitutes infringement of a trademark in territories where
the domain name has no commercial interests?
The U.S. Group believes that a domain name owner is not required to take special measures to prevent use of his domain name from infringing another's trademark in a foreign
territory in which the domain name owner has no commercial interests. The Internet is
analogous to print media, the dissemination of which is often uncontrollable, and which
can find its way to places in which material contained within clashes with established intellectual property rights. The U.S. Group is of the opinion that a mere presence on the
Internet alone is insufficient to constitute trademark infringement in a particular jurisdiction,
particularly as domain names are often not used in a manner that amounts to trademark
use. In order to prevent a chilling effect on use of the Internet, for a cause of action for
trademark infringement to arise, the domain name owner must be found to have established sufficient minimum contacts with a particular jurisdiction, as discussed in (q), below,
usually in the form of a commercial interest for use of a domain name to infringe a prior
trademark right. Such contacts could include, as the Committee has suggested, an intent
to direct an offer of goods and services to a particular territory in which a trademark is
registered, and which would be infringed.
8
Freedom Savings and Loan Association y. Way, 757 F.2d 1176 (11th Cir.).
9
Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(c) (1996).
Hasbro y. Internet Entertainment Group Case No. 2:96CV-13OWD (WO. Wash. Feb. 7, 1996). A
Washington District court enjoined defendant's use of CANDYLAND.COM to sell pornographic products. Plaintiff was the owner of a well-known boardgame called "Candyland", and the injunction was
granted, in part, under the Federal Dilution Act.
275
I)
Does the use of an Internet domain name which is identical or similar to a service
mark registered for communications means constitute infringement?
Although there are no specific cases on this issue in U.S. law, the U.S. Group believes
that marks for communications services should not be given any greater degree of protection merely because the Internet is a means of communication. If, for example, a domain
name is used as a trademark or service mark in connection with goods or services unrelated to communications, it may not necessarily infringe, in much the same way that use in
relation to printed matter may not infringe. Moreover, a domain name that is not used as a
trademark or service mark will generally not infringe a mark registered for communications
services. The U. S. trademark law presently provides sufficient protection for owners of
service marks registered for communications services.
Tradename Law
Can the registration of an Internet domain name be sufficient to create, and maintain, a tradename right to the second-level domain name included therein? Is, in
view of the global nature of the Internet, any use of a domain name which includes
the company name of the domain name holder sufficient?
Under U.S. trademark law, a tradename functions primarily as an indicator of corporate
identity.11 The fundamental purpose of a second-level domain name is to identify a website
owner. Although mere registration of a domain name cannot be sufficient to create and
maintain such a right, use of a registered domain name may be sufficient to establish
tradename use. Establishing such a right will become necessary as companies increasingly sell goods and offer services on the Internet, thereby maintaining their corporate
contacts with the consumer public in cyberspace. Tradenames can be protected under the
Lanham Act, and the test for infringement is a finding of a likelihood of confusion.12 Thus, it
appears that a tradename owner may have a cause of action against a domain name
owner under U.S. law. As a result, the U.S. Group believes that registration of an Internet
domain name is not sufficient to create and maintain a tradename right to a second-level
domain name, without use. The global nature of the Internet does not appear to have any
particular relevance to this proposition.
To what extent do the rules on absolute in validity of tradenames also apply to domain names?
Tradenames are registered by the individual states, which do not follow absolute invalidity
rules in the trademark sense. Some states do not permit use of terms such as "bank",
"trust company" or "insurance agency" unless the corporation actually is in the relevant
business, or complies with relevant state charter requirements, if any. As noted above, the
U.S. domain name registration authorities do not impose such conditions on domain name
registrants.
11
McCarthy on Trademark and unfair Competition, Fourth Edition, Volume 1, at 9-5.
12
Section 43.
276
I)
Does the global nature of the Internet imply that the normal criteria of infringement
of a tradename apply to any use of an identical or similar domain name?
The global nature of the Internet does not have any special relevance to infringement of a
tradename by use of a domain name:
What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that
his use of the domain name infringes another party's tradename in territories where
the domain name holder has no (significant) commercial interests?
The U.S. Group believes that a domain name owner is not required to take special measures to prevent use of his domain name from infringing another's tradename in a territory
in which the domain name owner has no commercial interests. lt is technically possible for
Internet access to a particular website to be blocked in certain jurisdictions; however, the
U.S. Group does not believe that domain name owners should be required to block access to avoid possible disputes. As noted above, the Internet is analogous to print media,
and a domain name owner cannot control who accesses his website and in what country
access will take place. Therefore, as above, the U.S. Group believes that a mere presence on the Internet is not sufficient to create liability for infringement of a tradename;
rather, tangible additional minimum contacts are necessary, as discussed in (q), below.
Unfair Competition
Can the registration and use of a domain name which is identical or similar to another party's trademark and/or tradename be successfully attacked on the basis of
general rules of unfair competition or tort?
Tortious conduct on the Internet that infringes a trademark or tradename in theory can be
attacked under unfair competition law. Under United States law,13 infringement of trademarks and service marks, as well as dilution of goodwill therein14 constitute unfair competition. Similarly, use of a confusingly similar company, business or professional name has
also been held to be unfair competition.15 Where a domain name owner's grant or use of a
domain name amounts to trademark or service mark infringement or passing off through,
for example, deceptive advertising or possibly through use of a deceptively similar
website, it seems clear that a prima facie case for unfair competition can be established.
Unfair competition law in the U.S. appears ready to embrace the growth of the proliferation
of the Internet as a medium for concluding business transactions.16 Thus, the U.S. Group
believes that the principles of "fairness" and "commercial ethics" that presently are accepted in the United States with respect to traditional business practices and which un13
Park N' Fly, Inc. y. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 u.s. 189, 83 L. Ed. 2d 582, 105 S. Ct. 658, 224
U.S.P.Q. 327 (1985).
14
Chemical Corp. of America y. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 306 F.2d 433, 134 U.S.P.Q. 524, 2 A.L.R.3d 739
(5th Cir. 1962).
15
Accuride International, Inc. y. Accuride Corp., 871 F.2d 1531, 10 u.s.P.Q.2d 1589 (9th Cir. 1989).
16
The commentator J. Thomas McCarthy notes:
"unfair competition law has developed as a flexible legal instrument to control the excesses
of a market system ri the throes of constant adjustment as it adapts itself to economic, political and social changes." Mc Carthy on Trademarks and unfair Competition, Fourth Edition,
Volume 1, at 1-28.
277
derpin U.S. unfair competition law also apply to business practices on the Internet, and
that tortious practices involving domain names in a commercial context potentially are unfair competition.
Sanctions
Which sanctions can a court order against the holder of a domain name which infringes the trademark or tradename rights of another party or which is otheiwise
unlawful vis-a-vis said party?
Infringement of a trademark through use of a domain name should be subject to the sanc-
tions presently afforded under most trademark laws. Under the U.S. Trademark Law,
these include interlocutory relief, an accounting of profits, damages, treble damages under
certain circumstances, costs and, in some cases, attorney's fees. One important form of
interlocutory relief that should be available for the plaintiff who proves a case of trademark
infringement against a so-called domain name pirate is the forced assignment of the pirated domain name to the plaintiff.
International Private Law
Which rules of the international private law of your Group 's countiy or region apply
in order to determine the applicable law in a dispute regarding the infringement of a
trademark or tradename by an Internet domain name?
The applicable law to be applied in cases of domain name conflicts in the United States is
determined under the conflicts of laws rules of the separate states. Although the rules vary
from state to state, a number of principles apply similarly to choice of law disputes. The
determination of which state's law will apply can be a function of domicile; that is, where
the parties to the dispute reside. Physical presence, intention to be domiciled and operation of law are the factors used to determine domicile. If domicile alone is not sufficient to
decide the applicable law, then choice of law rules are applied within constitutional limitations; meaning that there must be a reasonable relationship between the forum state and
the parties to the action so that a state has a legitimate interest in applying its own law. In
practice, cases are usually decided on an ad hoc basis, unless a specific statute dictating
that a particular state's law will govern comes into play. Such statutes often apply in specific legal areas as Worker's Compensation or insurance cases. The doctrine of renvoi,
pursuant to which a forum state must apply its internal law and conflicts law as well, is no
longer widely accepted in the United States.
Which private international law rules apply in order to determine which court is
competent to deal with the above mentioned dispute?
In order for U.S. law to apply to such disputes certain minimum contacts with the forum
sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction must be met. Generally, these minimum contacts are established using a three-part test. First, the defendant must have purposely invoked the privilege of acting in the forum state by committing an act that had a consequence in the forum state. Second, the plaintiffs cause of action must arise as a direct
consequence of the defendant's action in the forum state. Third, the defendant's act or the
consequences thereof must have been sufficiently important for exercise of the forum
278
states jurisdiction to be reasonable.17 U.S. courts have allowed the exercise of personal
jurisdiction in disputes arising from Internet use; however, the basis appears to require
something more than a mere presence on the Internet in the form of a website. These
bases can include an intent to be bound by contract in a particular state,18 as well as adequate grounds in tort, where the effects of harmful conduct in one state are felt in another.19 The extent to which tortious conduct on the Internet can trigger the exercise of
long-arm jurisdiction is in a state of flux, as courts seek to define its limits.20 It seems clear,
however, that if a foreign defendant has not targeted its activities on the Internet toward a
particular state, and the plaintiff has not been harmed by the supposedly tortious Internet
activity, grounds for personal jurisdiction will not be established. As stated before, the U.S.
Group favors a position that allows personal jurisdiction when activities greater than a
mere presence on the Internet cause harm to a defendant. In our view, to permit jurisdiction by a mere presence on the Internet would be an unreasonable extension of longarm
jurisdiction which many courts are unlikely to uphold, as no specific tort is intended to be
committed. The U.S. group favors applying well-established tests for minimum contacts to
Internet disputes.
Sum mary
The U.S. Group believes that trademark, tradename and unfair competition disputes involving domain names in the United States can be resolved easily under the laws presently in force in the United States. These laws have proven over the years to be flexible
enough to apply fundamental legal principles to emerging new technologies and business
media. Similarly the present standards of trademark and tradename registrability, as well
as unfair competition rules should suffice, with slight modification, to accommodate domain name-related intellectual property disputes. Internet issues are not new; rather, they
are in most cases traditional questions of law in a novel technological setting, and can be
resolved in a traditional manner. The United States Group believes that this position is
applicable to other countries as well, and thus opposes any radical alteration of the present U.S. laws or the establishment of any supranational regime to accommodate domain
name registration or to resolve disputes involving domain names. The U.S. Group does,
17
Burger King Corp. y. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985); World Wide Volkswagen Corp. y. Woodson,
444 U.S. 286 (1980)
18
Compuserve y. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996). The Sixth Circuit held that an electronic contract between two parties, which had a clause requiring application of the forum state's law was sufficient to serve as a basis to establish personal jurisdiction.
19
Maritz, Inc. y. Cybergold, No.4:96CV1340, 1996 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 14976 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 19, 1996). A
federal court in Missouri allowed jurisdiction over a California web-site server for placing an infringing
mark on the server's website, pursuant to Missouri's longarm statute, which allows jurisdiction over
foreign defendants for torts committed in Missouri. The court reasoned that as the defendant's trademark infringement amounted to tortious conduct, which the defendant knew would be likely to cause
injury outside the defendant's home state, jurisdiction of the Missouri courts was proper.
20
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. y. King, 937 F.Supp.295 (SONY. 1996). In this case, a New York club
with a federal trademark registration for BLUENOTE sued a Missouri club with the same name for
operating a website that included a telephone number for soliciting ticket sales. The Missouri club had
local rights based on first use of the mark. A federal court in New York found that because the Missouri club did not solicit sales in New York and did not sell tickets there, no tortious conduct occurred
in New York to bring the state's long-arm statute into play. This case was recently upheld on appeal.
279
however, support efforts for nations to harmonize their treatment of domain name issues
within the framework of their national laws.
Résumé
Le Groupe des Etats-Unis estime que les différends en matière de marques, noms commerciaux et concurrence déloyale mettant en cause des noms de domaines aux EtatsUnis peuvent être aisément résolus selon les lois actuellement en vigueur aux Etats-Unis.
Au cours des ans, ces lois se sont révélées suffisamment souples pour appliquer des
principes fondamentaux de droit à l'émergence de nouvelles technologies et de nouveaux
mayens de communications dans les affaires. De même les critères d'enregistrabilité des
marques et des noms commerciaux ainsi que les règles concernant la concurrence déloyale devraient suffire, avec de légères modifications, à s'adapter aux différends de propriété intellectuelle liés aux noms de domaines.
Les problèmes liées à l'Internet ne sont pas nouveaux, Ils soulèvent plutôt dans la plupart
des cas des questions juridiques traditionnelles dans un nouvel environnement technologique et peuvent être résolus de manière traditionnelle. Le groupe des Etats-Unis estime
que cette position est également applicable à d'autres pays, et s'oppose ainsi à tour
changement radical du droit américain actuel ou à tout régime supranational pour s'adapter à l'enregistrement de noms de domaines ou pour résoudre les différends mettant en
cause les noms de domaine. Cependant, le Groupe des Etats-Unis appuie les efforts des
nations pour harmoniser le traitement des problèmes de noms de domaine dans le cadre
de leurs lois nationales.
Zusammenfassung
Die U.S.-amerikanische Landesgruppe ist der Meinung, dass Konflikte, die im Zusammenhang mit Domain Namen stehen und die Marken, Kennzeichen und den unlauteren
Wettbewerb betreffen, am wirkungsvollsten unter Anwendung des zur Zeit gültigen Rechts
in den Vereinigten Staaten gelöst werden können. Dieses Recht hat in der Vergangenheit
unter Beweis gestellt, dass es ausreichend flexibel Ist, um fundamentale Rechtsgrundsätze auch auf Zukunftstechnologien und die Medienindustrie anzuwenden. Folglich sollten
die zur Zeit gültigen Standards der Eintragbarkeit von Marken und Firmenkennzeichen
sowie Regelungen gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb auch ausreichend sein, mit kleine-
ren Modifikationen Konflikte im Zusammenhang mit Domain Namen und geistigem Eigentum zu lösen. Internet-Sachverhalte sind nicht neu; es handelt sich vielmehr in den
meisten Fällen um traditionelle Rechtsfragen, die in einem neuen technologischen Umfeld
gestellt werden und die ebenfalls in traditioneller Weise gelöst werden können. Die U.S.amerikanische Landesgruppe ist der Meinung, dass diese Position auch auf andere Länder anwendbar Ist und wendet sich von daher gegen die radikale Änderung des bestehenden U.S.-amerikanischen Rechts oder die Errichtung von irgendwelchen supranationalen Regelungen, die die Registrierung von Domain Namen betreffen oder die Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit Domain Namen lösen sollen. Die U.S.-amerikanische Landesgruppe unterstützt aber die Bemühungen einzelner Länder, die Behandlung von Domain Namen-Angelegenheiten innerhalb des Rahmens ihrer nationalen Gesetze zu harmonisieren.
280
Table of contents
Guidelines Q 143
5
National and Regional Groups Reports
Argentina
Belgium
37
41
Brazil
Canada
China
Denmark
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
Great Britain
Hungary
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Mexico
Netherlands
Paraguay
56
59
66
69
73
76
83
115
138
144
150
161
166
171
180
182
194
214
217
222
240
254
263
Republic of Korea
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Thailand
United States of America
271
272
281
Table des matières
Orientation de travail Q 143
15
Rapports des Groupes nationaux et régionaux
Afrique du Sud
Allemagne
Argentine
Belgique
222
115
37
Brésil
Canada
China
56
59
66
69
73
240
272
76
83
138
144
150
41
Danemark
Egypte
Espagne
Etats-Unis dAmérique
Finlande
France
Grande-Bretagne
Hongrie
Irlande
Israel
161
Italie
Japon
166
Lettonie
Mexique
Paraguay
Pays-Bas
République de Corée
Suède
Suisse
Thallande
180
182
171
214
194
217
254
263
271
282
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Richtlinie Q 143
26
Berichte der National- und Regionalgruppen
Aegypten
Argentinien
Belgien
Brasilien
China
Dänemark
Deutschland
Finnland
Frankreich
Grossbritannien
Irland
Israel
Italien
Japan
Kanada
Lettland
Mexiko
Niederlande
Paraguay
Republik Korea
Schweden
Schweiz
Spanien
Südafrika
Thailand
Ungarn
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
73
37
41
56
66
69
115
76
83
138
150
161
166
171
59
180
182
194
214
217
254
263
240
222
271
144
272
283