The entrusted agent is Hou Mou, male, Han nationality, director of the Development Research Center of an Intellectual Property Development Co., Ltd. in Beijing.
Defendant **Network Technology Co., Ltd. in Beijing,
Legal representative Zhang, Chairman .
The authorized agent is Zhang, female, Han nationality, employee of the legal department of a ** Network Technology Co., Ltd. in Beijing.
The authorized agent is Wang, female, Han nationality, an employee of the legal department of a ** Network Technology Co., Ltd. in Beijing.
The defendant, a digital information technology company in Beijing,
Legal representative Yu Pinmou, chairman of the board .
The authorized agent is Tan, female, Han nationality, employee of a digital information technology company in Beijing.
Plaintiff Wang and defendants Beijing ** Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a company), Beijing Digital Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a company) computer After accepting the case of Internet domain name dispute, this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held public hearings on the case on March 22, May 30, and June 8, 2005. Hou, the authorized agent of the plaintiff Wang, Wang, the authorized agent of the defendant company, and Tan, the authorized agent of the defendant company, attended the court and participated in the lawsuit. The case has now been concluded.
Plaintiff Wang claimed: The plaintiff is the owner of the international domain name X. On April 2, 2004, a certain company assisted others in transferring the domain name to a certain company without the plaintiff's consent, resulting in the plaintiff being unable to use and manage his own domain name normally. As a company entrusted by the plaintiff to manage the domain name, a company failed to perform its due management obligations, causing the domain name to be transferred out by persons other than the owner without completing the procedures. This behavior of a company infringed the plaintiff's rights. legitimate rights and interests and shall bear corresponding responsibilities. The plaintiff requested a certain company to transfer the domain name back to a certain company, but the certain company did not agree to transfer out. This practice also violated the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests. For this reason, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit to the court, requesting an order to transfer the domain name registration service agency of a certain international domain name from a certain company back to a certain company, to restore the plaintiff's right to manage and use the domain name, and to orderThe second defendant is ordered to apologize to the plaintiff.
The defendant, a company, argued: As a domain name registration service provider, our company had no reason to refuse when a company requested domain name transfer, and our company’s approach complied with by law. Beijing Wang Online Information Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wang Online Company)’s statement on a certain domain name clarified that the company has the right to use and manage the domain name, and the company entrusted our company to manage the domain name. Wang should first resolve the domain name ownership issue with Wang’s online company, and then resolve the dispute in this case.
The defendant company argued: When we transferred the domain name, we reviewed the power of attorney issued by Wang’s online company and the information obtained from the Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter (referred to as the Beijing Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce) filing procedures. Wang is the owner of the domain name. Without changing the rights owner, Wang has transferred the right to use and manage the domain name to Wang Online Company. Our transfer of the domain name to a certain company did not damage Wang's rights, and we requested the court to reject Wang's lawsuit.
After trial, this court found the following facts: the plaintiff Wang is the registrant of the international domain name X, and the defendant X and Company are both domain name registration service agencies. The original name of a company was Beijing Xinmou Technology Development Co., Ltd., which was changed to its current name in March 2004. The non-party Wang Online Company applied for registration of a commercial website on June 14, 2001. The website name was "Wang Online" and the website domain name was .
Plaintiff Wang registered an international domain name on January 21, 1999, and the registrar of the domain name was originally a company. In April 2004, a company transferred the domain name based on Wang's online company's application, and the company became the registrar of the domain name as the transfer party. When a company transferred the domain name, it reviewed the "Domain Name License Agreement", "Domain Name Use Rights Entrustment Instructions", "Website Name Registration Certificate" and "Operational Website Registration Certificate" issued by Wang's online company. On April 28, 2004, Wang Online Company sent a letter to a certain company, stating that the right to use and manage a certain domain name belongs to Wang Online Company.
Plaintiff Wang is the legal representative of Beijing Damou Business Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Damou Business Consulting Company). On April 3, 2004, a certain business consulting company sent a letter to a certain company, requesting that a certain domain name be transferred back to a certain company for management. On May 11, 2004, a certain business consulting company sent a letter to a certain company, stating that a certain domain name was owned by Wang himself, and that Wang had never authorized Wang Online Company to manage the domain name and transfer the domain name to the registrar, and requested that a certain domain name be owned by Wang. The company transferred the domain name. A company sent a letter to a large business consulting company on May 13, 2004, stating that the company was only subject toThe entrusted network service agency hopes that Wang Online Company and Da XX Business Consulting Company will reach an agreement on relevant issues, and XX Company will safeguard the interests of all parties accordingly.
On March 8, 2005, Wang issued a "Notice on Terminating the Use of Domain Names". The main content is: Because Wang's online company cannot use it in good faith A certain domain name violated Wang's original intention of allowing the company to use the domain name, so Wang's online company was informed that the company would no longer be allowed to use the domain name.
During the trial of this case, this court obtained the "Domain Name License Agreement" signed by Wang and Wang's online company from the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Industry and Commerce. This agreement It was stipulated in the agreement: As the legal registrant of the domain name, Wang authorized Wang’s online company to use the domain name to open a website, and applied for website name registration as the website owner. The signing date of the agreement was April 11, 2001, and there was the signature of "Wang" at the end of the agreement. During the court hearing, the plaintiff Wang’s attorney pointed out that Wang’s signature in the agreement was not signed by Wang himself.
This court also retrieved the "Domain Name Usage Rights Entrustment Instructions" issued by a large business consulting company on March 1, 2001 from the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Industry and Commerce. The main contents are The international domain name is registered and owned by a large business consulting company. The right to use the domain name is now entrusted to Wang Online Company, which is responsible for the use and management. The relevant rights generated during the use of the domain name are related to All obligations are borne by Wang Online Company.
During the trial of this case, this court notified Wang’s online company to appear in court to explain the use and management of domain name X. Zhao *bin, one of the shareholders and executive manager of Wang Online Company, testified in court on behalf of Wang Online Company that Wang, as a shareholder of Wang Online Company, had already registered the ownership of a certain domain name when Wang Online Company was established in February 2001. The management rights and usage rights were handed over to Wang Online Company, and the original copy of the "Domain Name Usage Rights Entrustment Statement" issued by Wang's business consulting company on March 1, 2001 was submitted to this court. Plaintiff Wang's authorized agent did not object to the authenticity of the official seal stamped on the authorization statement, but raised objections to the probative power of the authorization statement.
In addition, the plaintiff Wang made it clear that he would not claim rights against Wang’s online company in this case regarding a certain domain name. So far, Wang is still the registrant of a certain domain name.
The above facts include user service activation notice, international domain name registrar transfer application form, and Wang and Wang’s online company signed on April 11, 2001 The "Domain Name Use License Agreement" and the "Domain Name Use Rights Entrustment Agreement" issued by a business consulting company on March 1, 2001"Statement", "Website Name Registration Certificate", "Commercial Website Registration Certificate", domain name query results, letters exchanged between the parties and outsiders, witness testimony, statements of the parties, court trial transcripts and other supporting evidence in the case .
This court believes that a domain name is a hierarchical character identifier used to identify and locate a computer on the network, corresponding to the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the computer. A network protocol address is a logical address assigned to a network node and is the basis for communication between subnets and computers on the Internet. What is really used for network communication is the IP address. The domain name is an easy-to-remember name corresponding to the IP address. Each domain name corresponds to a certain IP address. Therefore, the owner of the domain name should reasonably exercise relevant rights in accordance with laws and regulations on Internet management.
The first focus of the dispute between the two parties in this case is whether the plaintiff Wang, as the registrant of an international domain name, has authorized the use and management rights of the domain name To Wang’s online company.
First of all, according to the "Domain Name Use License Agreement" signed by Wang and Wang's online company obtained by this court from the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Industry and Commerce, it can be confirmed that Wang The fact that on April 11, 2001, Wang was authorized to use a domain name to open a website to an online company. Although Wang’s authorized agent disputed the authenticity of the signature in the agreement, because the agreement was a filing material with the Beijing Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce, and Wang’s online company recognized the authenticity of the agreement, the plaintiff Wang did not submit In the absence of other contrary evidence, this court shall confirm the probative force of the agreement.
Secondly, the "Instructions for Entrusting the Right to Use Domain Names" issued by a business consulting company on March 1, 2001 clearly states that the right to use the international domain name To Wang Online Company, Wang Online Company is responsible for the use and management. The plaintiff Wang is the legal representative of a large business consulting company and should be aware of the legal actions performed by the company. A large business consulting company was not the registrant of a certain domain name, but it disposed of the relevant rights of the domain name. Wang knowingly failed to raise contrary opinions within a reasonable period; and Wang had successively raised issues regarding the domain name registration service agency. A letter was sent to a certain company and a certain company in the name of a large business consulting company. Based on the relevant factors, it can be confirmed that Wang ratified the behavior of Da XX Business Consulting Company, that is, Wang recognized the fact that Wang XX online company was authorized to use and manage a certain domain name.
Third, the "Notice on Terminating the Use of Domain Names" issued by Wang on March 8, 2005 contained the following statement: "Because Wang's online company cannot use a certain domain name in good faith, domain name, which violates Wang’s original intention of allowing the company to use the domain name.” This material shows that Wang once allowed Wang to use the domain name.Online companies use domain names.
Fourth, if Wang believes that the "Domain Name Use License Agreement" and "Domain Name Use Rights Entrustment Instructions" are flawed, because these two materials are directly related to this case. If the rights and interests of Wang Mou Online Company, which is not outside the case, Wang Mou and Wang Mou Online Company separately resolve the dispute.
Based on the above four reasons, in the absence of Wang Mou providing valid contrary evidence, this court confirmed that the dispute between Wang Mou and Wang Mou Online Company in 2001 From March to April, a relevant agreement was reached on the use and management of a certain domain name, and Wang authorized Wang's online company to use the domain name to register a website.
"China Internet Network Information Center Domain Name Registration Service Organization Change Measures" stipulates that when the identity of the domain name holder is unclear or there is a dispute, the domain name holder You cannot apply to change the domain name registrar. According to the facts found in this case, Wang and Wang’s online company had reached an agreement on the use and management of a certain domain name, but the two parties’ current intentions are obviously inconsistent. Therefore, Wang should reach an agreement with Wang’s online company on the domain name issue. Then, change the domain name registrar. This court will not support the plaintiff Wang’s request to transfer the domain name registration service agency of the international domain name from a certain company back to a certain company.
To sum up, the plaintiff Wang’s claim in this case that a certain company infringed on the rights of his domain name owner has no factual basis. This court follows Article 128 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 4 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Computer Network Domain Names. In accordance with the provisions of Article 3, the judgment is as follows:
Dismiss the plaintiff Wang’s claim.